1 Preparing Highway Emissions Inventories for Urban Scale Modeling:

A Case Study in Philadelphia R. Cook a, A. Beidler b, J. S. Touma c, M. Strum d a US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA b Computer Sciences Corporation P. O Box 12804 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA c NOAA/ Atmospheric Sciences Modeling Division ( In Partnership with the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency), Research Triangle Park, NC d US Environmental Protection Agency MD 243 01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27707, USA Abstract Use of local data to develop air toxic pollutant inventories, rather than estimates based on national default data and " top down" allocation schemes, can have a very large impact on the magnitude and distribution of air toxic emissions. Such data can be used to significantly improve the accuracy of local scale assessment. This paper provides a comparison of " top down" and " bottom up" approaches for one urban area, Philadelphia, in calendar year 1999. Under the " top down"

approach, emissions are estimated at the county level, typically starting from more aggregated information, e. g., metropolitan statistical area or state data on activities, and average or default inputs to the highway vehicle emissions factor model. The " bottom up" approach utilizes Travel Demand Model ( TDM) data in conjunction with a highway vehicle emissions factor model to 2 better estimate levels and spatial distribution of onroad motor vehicle emissions. TDM data can include information on the spatial distribution of vehicle activity, speeds along those roads ( which can have a large impact on emissions), and the distribution of the vehicle miles traveled ( VMT)

among vehicle classes for different speed ranges. As expected these two approaches yield different spatial distribution of emissions; however, they also result in different levels of emissions at the county level.

Introduction Air quality models are useful tools for identifying sources and pollutants of greatest concern,

evaluating the effectiveness of existing or potential reduction strategies, and helping to locate monitors. Emission sources that are input into these models include major, area and mobile sources. The mobile sources include the highway or " on road" vehicles category, which are motorized vehicles that are normally operated on public roadways ( e. g., passenger cars,

motorcycles, minivans, sport utility vehicles, light duty trucks, heavy duty trucks, and buses) and the " nonroad" vehicles category ( e. g., commercial marine vessels, locomotives, aircraft, etc.). In this paper we will focus on air toxics emissions from highway vehicles only.

Highway vehicle emissions for regional and national scale air toxics assessments are usually developed using a " top down" approach. Under this approach, emissions are estimated at the county level using activity data which itself has been allocated from a larger geographic scale 3 ( State, or urban area) using spatial surrogates such as population. Default or average inputs are then used in a highway vehicle emissions factor model to compute county level emissions. Other spatial surrogates are used to allocate county level emissions to grid cells or census tracts as required by the air quality model. This approach is taken due to the difficulty of gathering and incorporating more precise local data for such a large domain. An example of an assessment which uses this approach is EPA's National Scale Air Toxics Assessment ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002). The National Scale Air Toxics Assessment relies on data from the National Emissions Inventory ( NEI), a national database of air pollutant emissions for major and area stationary sources, highway vehicles, and nonroad equipment ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004a). The issue with this approach is that default inputs used may not reflect local scale conditions. This can result in mischaracterization of emissions, not only at the sub county ( local) scale but also at the county scale.

Large scale air toxics assessments, such as the National Scale Air Toxics Assessment, are very useful as screening tools, and for identifying priorities for further analysis. However, both the level and distribution of toxic emissions vary greatly with estimates produced based on localized data. This can in turn affect the modeled concentrations and estimated risk. A recent study conducted in the Minneapolis St. Paul area of Minnesota, which used spatial surrogates to allocate mobile source emissions to census tracts, found that the Industrial Source Complex ( ISC)

dispersion model used tended to overpredict at low monitored concentrations, and undepredict at levels of high monitored concentrations ( Pratt et al., 2004). The investigators attributed this 4 pattern to the failure to represent roadway emissions properly. Recent studies ( Kinnee et al.,

2004; Cohen et al, 2005) show that using more refined local activity data to allocate emissions can improve model performance and have a significant impact on how toxic emissions are distributed in an urban area. These studies also show that there are strong spatial gradients of toxic emissions associated with roads, and that the high levels of air toxics associated with roads may increase risks for a number of adverse health effects. Thus, more accurate emissions data at the local scale is important in developing strategies to address air toxics at the local level.

While the previous studies focused on the distribution of emissions and resulting toxics concentrations at the census tract level and below, this study also looks at differences at the broader, county level. Even for a national assessment, incorporation of more local data through the current NEI development process can significantly improve modeling results.

Travel demand model data used for transportation planning can provide much more detailed information on the spatial distribution of roadway types, vehicle activity, and speeds along those roads ( which can have a large impact on emissions). These data can be used to more accurately estimate the magnitude of toxic emissions at the local scale and where they occur. 5 In this study, activity and speed data from travel demand modeling ( the TRANPLAN TRANsportation PLANning integrated transportation planning model) were used in conjunction with emission factor data from EPA's MOBILE6.2 model to develop a link level highway vehicle air toxics inventory and to characterize the distribution of air toxic emissions for the Philadelphia metropolitan area. These results were then compared with the inventory and spatial distribution of emissions developed for the 1999 National Air Toxics Study ( EPA, 2002).

Methodology Development of a highway emission inventory for national scale assessments: the " top down"

approach Development of Emission Factors  Regional and national scale Assessments, such as the National Scale Air Toxics Assessment ( U. S. EPA, 2002) typically rely on data from EPA's NEI.

For the NEI, EPA calculated air toxic emission factors for highway vehicles using EPA's MOBILE6.2 emission factor model ( EPA, 2004b; Cook and Glover, 2002). In addition to modeling criteria pollutant emission factors, MOBILE6 estimates emission factors for six air toxics ( benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 1,3 butadiene, acrolein, and methyl tertiary butyl ether). Modeling these pollutants requires detailed information on fuel parameters within the MOBILE6.2 scenario descriptions, along with the standard inputs, such as roadway type, average temperature, altitude, and inspection maintenance program, required to model criteria pollutant 6 emissions. Emission factors for other HAPs can be estimated using a command ( ADDITIONAL HAPS) which allows the user to enter emission factors or air toxic ratios for additional air toxic pollutants.

In the development of the 1999 NEI, default values were used for certain key modeling inputs.

For instance, MOBILE6.2 requires vehicle registration distributions by age as an input. Another required input is the fraction of VMT for each class of vehicles. The 1999 NEI utilized the national defaults contained within the MOBILE6.2 model. Also, national default speeds for different roadway types ( e. g., freeways, arterials, local roads, connector ramps) were used. For fuel inputs to MOBILE6.2, the NEI utilized data from fuel surveys done at service stations ( E. H.

Pechan and Associates, 2005; Cook and Glover, 2002). These parameters can significantly impact emission factors, and in more localized assessments, inventory accuracy can be greatly improved by replacing National defaults with local input data.

Emission factors are calculated by season or month, road type, and vehicle type, for exhaust and evaporative emissions ( E. H. Pechan and Associates, 2005). For the 1999 National Emissions Inventory, air toxic emission factors are estimated for each season rather than each month. For the NEI, state, local and tribal agencies can replace EPA generated emission estimates with their own emission estimates by submitting the data to EPA during the NEI development or review stages.

The preferred method, however, is for the state, local and tribal agencies to provide inputs to the National Mobile Inventory Model ( EPA, 2005), the framework housing MOBILE6.2. This 7 allows more local data to be used in a more transparent way.

Development of County Level VMT  To develop county level VMT for large urban areas such as Philadelphia for the NEI, U. S. EPA relies on data supplied by the Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA) and publicly available data from FHWA's Highway Statistics series ( DOT, 2002). Highway Statistics is the result of a cooperative effort between the FHWA and the States. Data from this report are used to apportion VMT into various vehicle categories. In addition, other data provided by FHWA are used to apportion urban area VMT to different roadway types. Large urban area VMT are allocated by roadway type to the county/ roadway level using Bureau of the Census 1990 Number of Inhabitants ( CNOI) data at the county level ( U. S.

Bureau of the Census, 1992). The following equation is used:

A UX C UX A UX C UX POP POP VMT VMT , , , , × = ( 1)

where:

VMT UX, C = Urban area VMT on roadway type X in county C ( calculated)

VMT UX, A = Urban area VMT on roadway type X for total urban area A contained in state ( FHWA)

POP UX, C = Urban area population in county C with nonzero mileage from urban roadway type X POP UX, A = Urban area population for total urban area A contained in state totaled for all counties 8 with nonzero mileage from urban roadway type X Using this methodology, VMT could be overestimated for areas where average VMT per capita is lower than average, such as urban centers with mass transit, and underestimated in areas where people tend to travel more, such as outskirts of an urban area. Finally, county level annual VMT is temporally allocated to different seasons using National seasonal allocation factors ( E. H.

Pechan and Associates, 2005).

Allocation of Highway Vehicle Emissions to Census Tracts   Highway vehicle county level air toxic emissions from the NEI can be allocated to census tracts or grid cells for national or regional scale modeling using the Emission Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants (

EMSHAP ( Strum et al., 2004). EMS HAP allocates highway vehicle emissions using the following equation:

J county tract J county J county tract S E E , , , , , × = ( 2)

where:

E tract , county, j = census tract or grid cell emissions from source category j in a county E county, j = emissions from category j in county that contains census tract or grid cell.

S tract, county j = spatial allocation factor for tract or grid cell in county that corresponds to spatial 9 surrogate assigned to source category j.

Six different spatial surrogates are available for allocation to census tracts nationwide. Table 1 shows how urban area VMT is allocated to counties and census tracts in the NEI. Onroad mobile source categories are mapped to these six spatial surrogates. Roadway miles are used as a surrogate for all categories but local roads, and population is the surrogate for local roads. The surrogates were developed using data from the TIGER and the Census Bureau as described in Table 2.1 Development of a highway emissions inventory for local assessments: the " bottom up" approach Metropolitan Planning Organizations ( MPOs) are a transportation policy making organizations made up of representatives from local government and transportation authorities. MPOs have responsibility for planning, programming and coordination of federal highway and transit investments in urbanized areas with a population greater than 50,000. One of an MPO's functions is to develop long range transportation plans for the urban area. Travel Demand Models ( TDM's) are commonly used to predict the demand for transportation services such as roads and to assist in the development of alternative plans. These models use a link node network tied to geographic coordinates to characterize travel patterns in the urban area. Associated with this network are data attributes such as number of lanes, roadway type, volume, speed, and capacity.

1 More details on surrogates are posted on http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ emch/ spatial/ newsurrogate. html 10 These data can be used with the MOBILE6.2 emissions model to create detailed emissions concentrations and spatial distributions. 2 The geographic database and associated attribute data of the Philadelphia area roadway network were obtained from the MPO technical staff of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. This database contains information on all roads, except local roads, based on 1999 information. Each road is divided into links and nodes which are road segments and endpoints.

Information provided includes coordinates of the nodes, roadway type, directional average annual daily traffic ( AADT) values, and number of lanes. Other urban area MPOs use regional planning organizations, local governments, state Departments of Transportation, or contractors to perform the technical aspects of TDMs.

This network data was first projected into Universal Transverse Mercator ( UTM) coordinates which are required by the air quality model. Each roadway segment, or link, in the database consisted of x and y coordinates, a roadway type indicator, directional AADT values, and number of lanes. Directional AADT values were summed and multiplied by the roadway segment length to obtain daily Vehicle Miles Traveled ( VMT) values. VMT by season and hour of the day was 2 ( See http:// www. planning. dot. gov/ Documents/ BriefingBook/ BBook. htm# 2BB for additional information on the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process) 11 then estimated using temporal distributions from the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission and allocated to vehicle classes.

EPA's MOBILE6.2 model was used to create seasonal, fleet average emission factors ( in grams/ mile) that were applied to the hourly VMT for each season, producing vehicle emissions for air toxics The basic input files used by EPA for the development of their national emissions inventory were used as the initial template for this study. These were then modified using Linux shell scripts to replace generalized inputs with inputs representing local conditions.

The seasonal fleet average emission factors from MOBILE 6.2 varied by facility type ( freeway,

arterial, local, ramp) and emission type ( exhaust running, exhaust start, evaporative hot soak,

evaporative diurnal, evaporative resting loss, evaporative running loss, and crankcase). The same speed distribution and VMT fractions for individual vehicle classes were used for all links of a given facility type. Emission factors for running emissions ( emissions produced from engine exhaust and evaporation as the engine is running) were extracted from the output by season and facility ( arterial, interstate), and matched to the VMT. This yields the hourly emissions for each of the air toxics for individual links.

  × = J county J county J county VMT FAC E , , , ( 3) 12 where:

E county, j = seasonal, hourly link emissions from facility j in a county FAC county, j = seasonal fleet average emission factor for facility type j within each county VMT county, j = seasonal, hourly link VMT for facility type j within each county Nonrunning ( evaporative emissions produced while the motor vehicle is not running or exhaust emissions from engine starting) emissions were derived from applying the MOBILE6.2 factors to total county VMT by hour, and were then spatially distributed to 1km x 1km grids using gridded interstate and other roads as surrogates. Gridding surrogates were developed by calculating the ratio between the length of roadway in a 1km square modeling grid and the total length of roadway in a county. These ratios were then used as surrogates to spatially distribute the total county emissions to the individual grid cells.

While many air toxics were included in the Philadelphia assessment, this paper focuses primarily on benzene and four others generated directly from MOBILE6.2. These four are 1,3 butadiene,

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein. Benzene is a product of both exhaust and evaporation while the other air toxics are only a product of exhaust. 13 Results Both the spatial distribution of emissions and the total county emissions differ significantly between the top down and the bottom up methodologies described above. Figure 1 illustrates the spatial distribution of benzene emissions using the local approach. Higher emissions are distributed along major roadways such as interstates and are concentrated at major highway intersections reflecting a more accurate spatial distribution the emissions when compared to the national methodology, where emissions are treated as " pseudo" point sources within a grid cell or census tract.

Figure 2 displays benzene emission distribution by census tract as used in the 1999 NATA.

Although the greater emissions density tracts generally follow the interstates and freeways, the distribution within a tract is uniform. Differences in the spatial distribution of emissions between the two methodologies is shown in Figure 3. Link based emissions were aggregated to tracts for the purpose of this comparison.

Using the two approaches, the total inventories for air toxics vary significantly for the modeling domain. We compared the two approaches for counties entirely within the modeling domain.

Table 3 shows that total county benzene emissions vary even more significantly between the approaches. Philadelphia county benzene emissions, for example, using the local approach, are about half of the emissions derived from using the national approach. A similar pattern is seen for 14 other air toxics ( Table 4).

Most differences in emissions among counties between the two approaches can be explained by examining the VMT, summarized in Table 5. While county level VMT varies greatly, the total VMT for the counties in the Philadelphia metropolitan area is close. The differences are a direct result of the approaches used. The national approach allocates VMT to the individual counties in an urban area based on population ratios while the local approach uses actual traffic count data ( e. g., VMT) for each roadway segment in a county to arrive at total county emissions.

However, despite the fact that total VMT for the Philadelphia metropolitan area is similar between the two approaches, the total benzene inventory for counties entirely within the modeling domain is about 13% lower when the local approach is used. This indicates that the MOBILE6.2 inputs used in the local approach are also playing a role. In this assessment, the differences are attributable to exhaust emissions, rather than evaporative. This is because they are even more pronounced for the air toxics in Table 4, which do not have an evaporative component, than they are for benzene. A sensitivity analysis of criteria pollutant estimates done for MOBILE6 indicated that the following inputs had a large impact on emission factors: speed, registration distribution,

VMT fractions for individual vehicle classes, temperature, and RVP ( Gianelli et al., 2002).

Furthermore, other fuel properties have a large impact on toxic emission rates as well ( U. S. EPA,

1999). Thus, we explored the impacts these key inventory inputs had on benzene emission results using the two approaches. 15 Small increases in the fraction of vehicles traveling at low speeds can have a large impact on emissions. For default MOBILE6.2 runs, such as those done for the NEI, an AVERAGE SPEED command is used. With this command, the VMT are assigned to two speed ranges for freeways and one speed range for arterials. In the Philadelphia modeling, the MOBILE6 SPEED VMT command was used, which assigns VMT to 14 speed ranges for both freeways and arterials. A comparison of emission rates using the SPEED VMT command versus the AVERAGE SPEED command at various average speeds found very little difference in results for benzene.

The registration distributions used in the local approach can also have a large impact. A 20%

shift in vehicle fractions among age classes can lead to an increase in emissions of up to 50%

( Gianelli, et al., 2002). A comparison of benzene emission rates for Philadelphia County, using local distributions versus the MOBILE6 defaults, with all other inputs unchanged, had a significant impact. Emission factors were more than 10% lower using the local distributions ( Table 6).

Another input which varied between the local approach and the NEI was the fraction of the total VMT assigned to individual vehicle classes. However, a comparison of the impact of using local VMT fractions on benzene emission factors in Philadelphia County, with all other inputs unchanged, found this had little effect ( about 0.6%). Other inputs which have been found to significantly impact toxic emission factors, such as temperature and RVP, did not vary between 16 the two modeling approaches. Thus, differences in registration distributions between the two approaches explain a significant portion of the total inventory difference for the modeling domain.

Conclusion Use of local level inputs can have a significant impact on the magnitude and distribution of highway vehicle air toxic emissions. This study shows that estimating vehicle running emissions for individual road links to develop an inventory results in a much different spatial distribution of emissions than allocating emissions using spatial surrogates. Furthermore, the population ratio methodology used to allocate VMT to counties in the NEI is inconsistent with travel demand model estimates of where this activity is occurring. Moreover, use of local data rather than default national inputs can also result in significant differences in air toxics emissions estimates. In the case of Philadelphia, using local registration distribution data results in significantly lower air toxics emission factors and resultant emissions. In addition to improving the quality of local scale assessment, using these local data can improve the quality of National scale assessment through the current NEI development process. Use of local inputs and TDM developed VMT with the " top down" approach used in the NEI results in county wide inventories which closely approximate county wide inventories developed using a more disaggregate " bottom up"

approach.

Acknowledgements 17 We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Ray Chalmers, Dr. James D. Smith, Brian Rehn and Alan Cimorelli of EPA Region 3, and Harvey Michaels, David Brzezinski, Megan Beardsley, and Chad Bailey of EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality. We also appreciate the comments of Laurel Driver, George Pouliot, and William Benjey.

Disclaimer This paper has been reviewed in accordance with the US Environmental Protection Agency's peer and administrative review policies and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation of their use. 18 References Cohen, J., Cook, R., Bailey, C., Carr, E. ( 2005) Relationship between motor vehicle emissions of hazardous air pollutants, roadway proximity, and ambient concentrations in Portland, Oregon.

Environ. Modelling and Software 20, 7 12.

Cook, R.; Glover, E., ( 2002) Technical Description of the Toxics Module for MOBILE6.2 and Guidance on Its Use for Emission Inventory Preparation. U. S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Ann Arbor, MI, Report No., EPA420 R 02 011. Located at:

< http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ m6. htm>

E. H. Pechan and Associates, ( 2005) Documentation for the Onroad National Emissions Inventory ( NEI) for Base Years 1970 2002. Prepared for U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Located at: < http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ nei Gianelli, R., Gillmore, J., Landman, L., Srivastava, S., Beardsley, M., Brzezinski, D., Dolce, G.,

Koupal, J., Pedelty, J., Shyu, G. ( 2002) Sensitivity Analysis of MOBILE6.0. EPA Report No.

EPA420 R 02 035. http:// www. epa. gov/ OMSWWW/ models/ mobile6/ m6tech. htm 19 Kinnee, E., Touma, J., Mason, R, Thurman, J., Beidler, A., Bailey, C., Cook, R. ( 2004).

Allocation of Onroad Mobile Emissions to Road Segments for Air Toxics Modeling in an Urban Area, Transportation Research Part D 9, 139 150.

Pratt, G., Wu, C., Bock, D. ( 2004). Comparing air dispersion model predictions with measured concentrations of VOCs in urban areas. Environmental Scientific Technology. 38: 423 430.

Strum, M.; Mason, R,; Thurman, J. ( 2004) User's Guide for the Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( EMS HAP) Version 3.0. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division,

Research Triangle Park, NC. Report No. EPA 454/ B 03 006. Located at:

< http:// www. epa. gov/ scram001/ userg/ other/ emshapv3ug. pdf>

DOT ( U. S. Department of Transportation), ( 2002). Highway Statistics 1999: May 2002 Update.

Office of Highway Information Management, Office of Policy Development, Federal Highway Administration. U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C. Located at:

< http:// www. fhwa. dot. gov/ ohim/ hs99/ index. html>

U. S. Bureau of the Census, ( 1992) 1990 Census of Population, Volume I Characteristics of Population, Chapter B Number of Inhabitants. Located at: <

http:// www. census. gov/ prod/ www/ abs/ decennial. html> 20 U. S. EPA. ( 1999). Analysis of the Impacts of Control Programs on Motor Vehicle Toxics Emissions and Exposure in Urban Areas and Nationwide. Prepared by Sierra Research, Inc. and Eastern Research Group, Inc. for Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Ann Arbor, MI.

Report No. EPA420 R 99 029. http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ regs/ toxics/ tox_ archive. htm# 1 EPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency), ( 2002) National Air Toxics Assessment for 1996.

Located at: < http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ atw/ nata>

EPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency), ( 2004b). 1999 National Emissions Inventory,

Final Version 3.0. Located at: < http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ chief/ net/ 1999inventory. html>

EPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency), ( 2004b) MOBILE6 Vehicle Emissions Model.

Located at: < http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ m6. htm>

EPA ( U. S. Environmental Protection Agency), ( 2005). EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model ( NMIM), A Consolidated Emissions Modeling System for MOBILE6 and NONROAD.

http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ nmim. htm 21 Table 1 Mapping of Mobile Source Emission Roadway Categories to Spatial Surrogates Highway Mobile Source ( FHWA category) Spatial Surrogate Assignment ( Miles)

rural interstate rural primary roads rural other principal arterial rural primary roads rural minor arterial rural primary roads rural major collector rural secondary roads rural minor collector rural secondary roads rural local rural population urban interstate urban primary roads urban other freeways and expressways urban primary roads urban other principal arterial urban primary roads urban minor arterial urban primary roads urban collector urban secondary roads urban local urban population 22 Table 2 Data Used to Develop Surrogates for Mobile Sources for National/ Regional Scale Modeling Surrogate Description of how surrogate was developed Urban Primary Roads Road Miles of Urban Primary Roads. Overlayed US Census Bureau's urban areas with TIGER roads. Urban primary roads are roads with CFCC A11 through CFCC A28 and A63 that fall within census designated urban areas.

Rural Primary Roads Road Miles of Rural Primary Roads. Overlayed US Census Bureau's urban areas with TIGER roads. Rural primary roads are roads with CFCC A11 through CFCC A28 and A63 that fall within census designated rural areas.

Urban Secondary Roads Road Miles of Urban Secondary Roads. Overlayed US Census Bureau's urban areas with TIGER roads. Urban secondary roads are roads with CFCC A31 through CFCC A38 that fall within census designated urban areas.

Rural Secondary Roads Road Miles of Rural Secondary Roads. Overlayed US Census Bureau's urban areas with TIGER roads. Rural secondary roads are roads with CFCC A31 through CFCC A38 that fall within census designated rural areas.

Table 3 Comparison of Annual 1999 Benzene Emissions ( tons/ year) from Two Approaches County Local ( TDM) Based National ( NEI) Percent Difference Camden 165 210  27% Delaware 162 160 1% Gloucester 110 104 6% Montgomery 333 209 59% Philadelphia 255 467  45% Total 1,025 1,150  12% 23 Table 4 Comparison of Annual 1999 Emissions ( tons/ year) for Selected HAPs Using the Two Approaches County Butadiene, 1,3 Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Acrolein TDM NEI TDM NEI TDM NEI TDM NEI Camden 25 34 93 128 29 37 4 6 Delaware 21 26 79 105 24 30 3 4 Gloucester 17 17 62 66 19 19 3 3 Montgomery 44 35 165 139 51 40 7 6 Philadelphia 34 77 127 305 39 86 5 13 Total 141 189 526 744 162 211 22 32 24 Table 5 Comparison of Annual VMT From Two Approaches Annual VMT ( Vehicle Miles Traveled) 1999 County VMT Derived from TDM ( Travel Demand Model ) VMT From Highway Statistics ( used in NEI) Percent Difference Bucks 4,878,636,990 3,710,307,400 31% Burlington 4,187,820,178 3,567,877,700 17% Camden 3,682,826,156 4,199,354,700  12% Chester 4,491,670,453 3,046,058,600 47% Delaware 3,155,112,296 3,373,141,300  6% Glouster 2,524,701,655 2,195,654,200 15% Mercer 3,136,953,593 3,555,648,300  12% Montgomery 6,381,619,077 4,508,702,800 42% Philadelphia 4,864,568,590 9,804,935,300  50% Total 37,303,908,988 37,961,680,300  2%

Table 6. Impact of Local Registration Distribution on MOBILE6 Benzene Emission Factors ( All Other Inputs Unchanged)

Emission Factor ( gm/ mi) Facility Speed Local M6 Default % Difference Arterial 10 64 74  13 Arterial 15 51 59  13 Arterial 20 44 51  14 Arterial 25 41 47  14 Arterial 30 38 44  13 Arterial 35 37 42  13 Arterial 40 36 42  13 Arterial 45 36 41  13 Freeway 10 61 71  14 Freeway 15 47 55  14 Freeway 20 43 49  14 Freeway 25 40 47  13 Freeway 30 39 45  13 Freeway 35 38 43  13 Freeway 40 37 43  13 Freeway 45 37 42  12 Freeway 50 37 42  12 Freeway 55 37 42  12 Freeway 60 37 41  12 Freeway 65 36 40  12 25 Figure 1 Philadelphia Link Based Benzene Emissions Distribution 0 0.03 0.03  0.10 0.10  0.25 0.25  0.5 Tons/ Year 26 Figure 2 Philadelphia Tract Emissions Density from 1999 NATA 0.087532  0.136542 0.050421  0.087531 0.028344  0.050420 0.012306  0.028343 0.000000  0.012305 Tons/ Year/ Sq. Mile 27 Figure 3 Difference in Emissions Density ( 1999 NATA Versus Local Approach Using Link Based Emissions)

Tons/ Year/ Sq. Mile  0.034  0 0  0.120


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 235 (Thursday, December 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72851-72856]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29513]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9758-1]

California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards;
Portable Equipment Registration Program; Notice of Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting authorization for the California Air Resources
Board's (CARB's) amendments to its Portable Equipment Registration
Program (PERP), and confirming that certain portions of CARB's PERP
program is within the scope of previous EPA authorizations. PERP is a
voluntary statewide program that enables registration of nonroad
engines and equipment that operate at multiple locations across
California, so that the engine and equipment owners can operate
throughout California without obtaining permits from local air
pollution control districts.

DATES: Petitions for review must be filed by February 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0102. All documents relied upon in making this
decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are contained in
the public docket. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, located at 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open to the public on all
federal government working days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally,
it is open Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center's Web site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. The electronic mail (email) address for the Air and
Radiation Docket is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the telephone number is
(202) 566-1742, and the fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic
version of the public docket is available through the federal
government's electronic public docket and comment system. You may
access EPA dockets at http://www.regulations.gov. After opening the
www.regulations.gov Web site, enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0102 in the ``Enter
Keyword or ID'' fill-in box to view documents in the record. Although a
part of the official docket, the public docket does not include
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'') or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
    EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (``OTAQ'') maintains
a Web page that contains general information on its review of
California waiver requests. Included on that page are links to prior
waiver Federal Register notices, some of which are cited in today's
notice; the page can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristien G. Knapp, Attorney-Advisor,
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue (6405J) NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. California's PERP Authorization Request

    In a letter dated December 5, 2008, CARB submitted to EPA its
request pursuant to section 209 of the Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or ``the
Act''), regarding its Portable Equipment Registration Program
(``PERP'').\1\ The PERP was

established by CARB as a voluntary program to address the concern that
equipment owners who moved equipment within California often faced the
need to obtain preconstruction and operating permits from different
local air pollution control districts in the state.\2\ The PERP allows
voluntary registration of either spark-ignition (SI) or compression-
ignition (CI) portable piston driven internal combustion engines or
portable equipment units. Under the PERP, once registered, equipment is
no longer subject to local air pollution control district permitting
requirements. Rather, registration with the PERP allows equipment to be
moved more freely within the state. ``Portable'' as defined within
CARB's PERP program, means equipment that is designed and capable of
being transported from one location to another. Not all equipment is
eligible for registration in the PERP; generally, engines used for
propulsion, as part of a stationary source, or used to produce power
into the California electricity grid are not eligible for registration
under the PERP. The PERP sets out four general requirements applicable
to all registered equipment: (1) Registered equipment may not operate
in a manner that causes a nuisance; (2) registered equipment may not
interfere with attainment of federal or state air quality standards;
(3) registered equipment may not cause an exceedance of an ambient air
quality standard; and (4) owners of registered equipment (or combined
operation of such equipment) must provide notice and comply with
requirements for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) if it
would constitute a major modification of that source. The PERP also has
specific requirements for both registered engines and certain types of
equipment units. For engines, the specific requirements include fuel-
type restrictions, opacity limits, mass emissions and emission
concentration limits, and metering requirements, based on engine size.
With limited exceptions, after January 1, 2006, only engines that meet
the most stringent CARB or EPA emission standards in effect at the time
of registration are allowed in the PERP. Registered compression-
ignition engines must also meet requirements of the CARB Airborne Toxic
Control Measure (ATCM) for in-use portable diesel-fueled engines 50
brake-horsepower (hp) and greater portable engines (CARB's portable
diesel equipment (PDE) regulations).\3\ For equipment, the PERP sets
daily and annual mass emission limits for all registered equipment
units (exclusive of engine emissions). Certain types of equipment, such
as concrete batch plants and rock crushing and screening plants, have
specific, additional requirements, primarily aimed to minimize
particulate emissions associated with their operation. The PERP also
includes regulatory requirements for recordkeeping, reporting,
inspection, testing, fee collection, and enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ California Air Resources Board (CARB), Request for
Authorization, December 5, 2008, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0102-0002.
    \2\ CARB notes in its request that ``For the record, CARB
believes that because participation in the Statewide Program is
voluntary, the emission standards for registered nonroad engines are
not subject to the [Clean Air Act] Sec.  209 preemption. Since the
emission standards apply only if an owner voluntarily elects to
register, the standards do not constitute `standards and other
requirements' within the meaning of section 209(e), which CARB
believes only applies to mandated requirements. However, without
prejudice to CARB's position and to avoid further delay in obtaining
federal authorization, CARB submits this request.'' EPA takes no
position here on CARB's beliefs with respect to its need for
authorization of a voluntary program.
    \3\ CARB has requested an authorization for its air toxic
control measure for portable diesel engines. EPA announced the
opportunity for public hearing and public comment on that request by
a Federal Register notice published February 9, 2011. See 76 FR 7196
(February 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1995, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 531
to address a perceived problem with the use of portable equipment and
associated engines that were operated in more than one air pollution
control district.\4\ CARB was directed by AB 531 to create and
administer a voluntary statewide program for the registration of
portable equipment.\5\ In 1997, CARB adopted regulations creating the
PERP,\6\ which was amended by CARB in 1998, 2005, 2006, and March
2007.\7\ CARB adopted Resolution 07-9 on March 22, 2007, which amended
the PERP, after a public hearing held earlier that month.\8\ Executive
Order G-07-013 was issued by the Executive Officer, and the regulations
were submitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), on July 31,
2007.\9\ On September 12, 2007, OAL approved the regulations and they
became operative the same day.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CARB, Request for Authorization at 2; California Health and
Safety Code (CA HSC) Sec.  41750.
    \5\ CA HSC Sec.  41752.
    \6\ California Code of Regulations, title 13 Sec. Sec.  2450
through 2465.
    \7\ CARB, Request for Authorization at 3.
    \8\ Id.; CARB, Resolution 07-9 at 1.
    \9\ CARB, Resolution 07-9 at 1.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB has requested that EPA confirm that parts of the voluntary
PERP for portable engines and equipment fall within the scope of
previously issued authorizations or submitted authorization requests
(i.e., the ATCM for Portable Diesel Engines),\11\ and that the
Administrator grant a new authorization for those emission standards
not otherwise covered by a within-the-scope confirmation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control
Standards; Authorization of State Standards for 1996 and later New
Diesel Cycle Engines 175 Horsepower and Greater, 60 FR 48981
(September 21, 1995); California State Nonroad Engine and Vehicle
Pollution Control Standards; Authorization of Large Off-Road Spark-
Ignition Engine Standards, Notice of Decision, 71 FR 29621 (May 23,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clean Air Act Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Authorizations

    Section 209(e)(1) of the Act permanently preempts any State, or
political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce
any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions
for certain new nonroad engines or vehicles. States are also preempted
from adopting and enforcing standards and other requirements related to
the control of emissions from non-new nonroad engines or vehicles.
Section 209(e)(2) requires the Administrator, after notice and
opportunity for public hearing, to authorize California to enforce such
standards and other requirements, unless EPA makes one of three
findings. In addition, other states with attainment plans may adopt and
enforce such regulations if the standards, and implementation and
enforcement procedures, are identical to California's standards. On
July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule that sets forth, among other
things, regulations providing the criteria, as found in section
209(e)(2), which EPA must consider before granting any California
authorization request for new nonroad engine or vehicle emission
standards.\12\ EPA later revised these regulations in 1997.\13\ As
stated in the preamble to the 1994 rule, EPA has historically

interpreted the section 209(e)(2)(iii) ``consistency'' inquiry to
require, at minimum, that California standards and enforcement
procedures be consistent with section 209(a), section 209(e)(1), and
section 209(b)(1)(C) (as EPA has interpreted that subsection in the
context of section 209(b) motor vehicle waivers).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
    \13\ 62 FR 67733 (December 30, 1997). The applicable
regulations, now in 40 CFR part 1074, subpart B, 1074.105, provide:
    (a) The Administrator will grant the authorization if California
determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as otherwise applicable
federal standards.
    (b) The authorization will not be granted if the Administrator
finds that any of the following are true:
    (1) California's determination is arbitrary and capricious.
    (2) California does not need such standards to meet compelling
and extraordinary conditions.
    (3) The California standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 209 of the Act.
    (c) In considering any request from California to authorize the
state to adopt or enforce standards or other requirements relating
to the control of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines
smaller than 50 horsepower, the Administrator will give appropriate
consideration to safety factors (including the potential increased
risk of burn or fire) associated with compliance with the California
standard.
    \14\ 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad
standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section
209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures
must not attempt to regulate engine categories that are permanently
preempted from state regulation. To determine consistency with section
209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests
under the same ``consistency'' criteria that are applied to motor
vehicle waiver requests. Pursuant to section 209(b)(1)(C), the
Administrator shall not grant California a motor vehicle waiver if she
finds that California ``standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 202(a)'' of the Act.
Previous decisions granting waivers and authorizations have noted that
state standards and enforcement procedures are inconsistent with
section 202(a) if: (1) There is inadequate lead time to permit the
development of the necessary technology giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance within that time, or (2) the
federal and state testing procedures impose inconsistent certification
requirements.
    If California amends regulations that were previously granted an
authorization, EPA can confirm that the amended regulations are within
the scope of the previously granted authorization. Such within-the-
scope amendments are permissible without a full authorization review if
three conditions are met. First, the amended regulations must not
undermine California's determination that its standards, in the
aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable
federal standards. Second, the amended regulations must not affect
consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. Third, the amended
regulations must not raise any ``new issues'' affecting EPA's prior
authorizations.

C. Burden of Proof

    In Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir.
1979) (``MEMA I''), the U.S. Court of Appeals stated that the
Administrator's role in a section 209 proceeding is to:

consider all evidence that passes the threshold test of materiality
and * * * thereafter assess such material evidence against a
standard of proof to determine whether the parties favoring a denial
of the waiver have shown that the factual circumstances exist in
which Congress intended a denial of the waiver.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1122.

    The court in MEMA I considered the standards of proof under section
209 for the two findings related to granting a waiver for an
``accompanying enforcement procedure'' (as opposed to the standards
themselves): (1) Protectiveness in the aggregate and (2) consistency
with section 202(a) findings. The court instructed that ``the standard
of proof must take account of the nature of the risk of error involved
in any given decision, and it therefore varies with the finding
involved. We need not decide how this standard operates in every waiver
decision.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a
waiver, there must be `clear and compelling evidence' to show that
proposed procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's
standards.\17\ The court noted that this standard of proof also accords
with the congressional intent to provide California with the broadest
possible discretion in setting regulations it finds protective of the
public health and welfare.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not
articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found
that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of
proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence.
Although MEMA I did not explicitly consider the standards of proof
under section 209 concerning a waiver request for ``standards,'' as
compared to accompanying enforcement procedures, there is nothing in
the opinion to suggest that the court's analysis would not apply with
equal force to such determinations. EPA's past waiver decisions have
consistently made clear that: ``[E]ven in the two areas concededly
reserved for Federal judgment by this legislation--the existence of
`compelling and extraordinary' conditions and whether the standards are
technologically feasible--Congress intended that the standards of EPA
review of the State decision to be a narrow one.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., 40 FR 21102-103 (May 28, 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Opponents of the waiver bear the burden of showing that the
criteria for a denial of California's waiver request have been met. As
found in MEMA I, this obligation rests firmly with opponents of the
waiver in a section 209 proceeding:

[t]he language of the statute and it's legislative history indicate
that California's regulations, and California's determinations that
they must comply with the statute, when presented to the
Administrator are presumed to satisfy the waiver requirements and
that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever attacks them.
California must present its regulations and findings at the hearing
and thereafter the parties opposing the waiver request bear the
burden of persuading the Administrator that the waiver request
should be denied.\20\

    \20\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Administrator's burden, on the other hand, is to make a
reasonable evaluation of the information in the record in coming to the
waiver decision. As the court in MEMA I stated: ``here, too, if the
Administrator ignores evidence demonstrating that the waiver should not
be granted, or if he seeks to overcome that evidence with unsupported
assumptions of his own, he runs the risk of having his waiver decision
set aside as `arbitrary and capricious.' '' \21\ Therefore, the
Administrator's burden is to act ``reasonably.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. at 1126.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. EPA's Administrative Process in Consideration of CARB's PERP Request

    Upon review of CARB's request, EPA offered an opportunity for a
public hearing, and requested written comment on issues relevant to a
full section 209(e) authorization analysis, by publication of a Federal
Register notice on February 9, 2011.\23\ Specifically, we requested
comment on: (a) Whether CARB's determination that its standards, in the
aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) whether
California needs such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions, and (c) whether California's standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures are consistent with section 209 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 76 FR 7194 (February 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to EPA's February 9, 2011 Federal Register notice,\24\
EPA received one request for a hearing, which was

later withdrawn, and no public comments.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id.
    \25\ EPA, ``Memorandum from Brianna Iddings to Docket ID EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0102,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0102-0014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Full Authorization Analysis

1. California's Protectiveness Determination
    Section 209(e)(2)(i) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an
authorization if the agency finds that California was arbitrary and
capricious in its determination that its standards are, in the
aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable federal standards. CARB made a protectiveness determination
in Resolution 07-9, finding that California's PERP is, ``in the
aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable federal standards.'' \26\ CARB presents that California's
PERP is at least as stringent as the federal standards: ``since no
federal standards exist for in-use nonroad engines,\27\ the emissions
standards [submitted] are unquestionably as protective of comparable
federal regulations.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ CARB, Resolution 07-9 at 5.
    \27\ CAA Sec.  213.
    \28\ CARB, Request for Authorization at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA did not receive any comments challenging California's
protectiveness determination. Therefore, based on the record before us,
EPA finds that opponents of the authorization have not shown that
California was arbitrary and capricious in its determination that its
standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public
health and welfare as applicable federal standards.
2. Need for California Standards To Meet Compelling and Extraordinary
Conditions
    Section 209(e)(2)(ii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant an
authorization if the agency finds that California ``does not need such
California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions *
* *.'' This criterion restricts EPA's inquiry to whether California
needs its own mobile source pollution program to meet compelling and
extraordinary conditions, and not whether any given standards are
necessary to meet such conditions.\29\ As discussed above, for over
forty years CARB has repeatedly demonstrated the need for its mobile
source emissions program to address compelling and extraordinary
conditions in California. In its Resolution 07-9, CARB affirmed its
longstanding position that, in order to fight its serious air pollution
problems, ``California needs its off-road engine emission standards to
meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.'' \30\ Likewise, EPA has
consistently recognized that California continues to have the same
``geographical and climatic conditions that, when combined with the
large numbers and high concentrations of automobiles, create serious
pollution problems.'' \31\ Furthermore, no commenter has presented any
argument or evidence to suggest that California no longer needs a
separate mobile source emissions program to address compelling and
extraordinary conditions in California. Therefore, EPA has determined
that we cannot deny California an authorization for its PERP under
section 209(e)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 74 FR 32744, 32761 (July 8, 2009); 49 FR 18887, 18889-
18890 (May 3, 1984).
    \30\ CARB, Resolution 07-9 at 5.
    \31\ 49 FR 18887, 18890 (May 3, 1984); see also 76 FR 34693
(June 14, 2011), 74 FR 32744, 32763 (July 8, 2009), and 73 FR 52042
(September 8, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Consistency With Section 209 of the Clean Air Act
    Section 209(e)(2)(iii) of the Act instructs that EPA cannot grant
an authorization if California's standards and enforcement procedures
are not consistent with section 209. As described above, EPA has
historically evaluated this criterion for consistency with sections
209(a), 209(e)(1), and 209(b)(1)(C).
a. Consistency With Section 209(a)
    To be consistent with section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act,
California's PERP must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines. California's PERP expressly applies only to portable
vehicles and expressly precludes registration of engines used to propel
motor vehicles as defined by section 216(2) of the Clean Air Act.\32\
No commenter presented otherwise. Therefore, EPA cannot deny
California's request on the basis that California's PERP is not
consistent with section 209(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ CARB, Request for Authorization at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Consistency With Section 209(e)(1)
    To be consistent with section 209(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act,
California's PERP must not affect new farming or construction vehicles
or engines that are below 175 horsepower, or new locomotives or their
engines. CARB presents that ``locomotive and locomotive engines cannot
be registered in the Statewide Program.'' \33\ CARB also presents that
new farm and construction equipment do not fall under the program.\34\
No commenter presented otherwise. Therefore, EPA cannot deny
California's request on the basis that California's PERP is not
consistent with section 209(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id. at 13.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Consistency With Section 209(b)(1)(C)
    The requirement that California's standards be consistent with
section 209(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act effectively requires
consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. California standards are
inconsistent with section 202(a) of the Act if there is inadequate
lead-time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet
those requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance within that timeframe. California's accompanying enforcement
procedures would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if federal
and California test procedures conflicted. The scope of EPA's review of
whether California's action is consistent with section 202(a) is
narrow. The determination is limited to whether those opposed to the
authorization or waiver have met their burden of establishing that
California's standards are technologically infeasible, or that
California's test procedures impose requirements inconsistent with the
federal test procedures.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Technological Feasibility
    Congress has stated that the consistency requirement of section
202(a) relates to technological feasibility.\36\ Section 202(a)(2)
states, in part, that any regulation promulgated under its authority
``shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds
necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite
technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance
within such period.'' Section 202(a) thus requires the Administrator to
first determine whether adequate technology already exists; or if it
does not, whether there is adequate time to develop and apply the
technology before the standards go into effect. The latter scenario
also requires the Administrator to decide whether the cost of
developing and applying the technology within that time is feasible.
Previous EPA waivers are in accord with this position.\37\ For example,
a previous EPA waiver decision considered California's standards and
enforcement procedures to be consistent with section 202(a)

because adequate technology existed as well as adequate lead-time to
implement that technology.\38\ Subsequently, Congress has stated that,
generally, EPA's construction of the waiver provision has been
consistent with congressional intent.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301 (1977).
    \37\ See, e.g., 49 FR 1887, 1895 (May 3, 1984); 43 FR 32182,
32183 (July 25, 1978); 41 FR 44209, 44213 (October 7, 1976).
    \38\ 41 FR 44209 (October 7, 1976).
    \39\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB presents that the technology required to comply with its PERP
has already been established and is currently available.\40\ CARB has
determined that ``participants in the Statewide Program can pass on any
compliance costs without incurring significant economic disruption.''
\41\ CARB further stresses that admission into PERP is entirely
voluntary, so any costs associated with compliance of the program are
voluntarily incurred by those that choose to participate in the
program.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ CARB, Request for Authorization at 16-17.
    \41\ Id. at 16.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB staff estimate ``that the total economic impact of the
proposed amendments to the Statewide PERP Regulation to affect private
businesses and public agencies is $6.6 million over its lifetime ($6.1
million for private businesses and $0.5 million for public agencies).''
\43\ The economic impact comes from fees for non-compliant engines.
However, if affected parties were instead required to purchase new
engines that meet current emission standards, the overall cost to those
parties would be around $250 million.\44\ The PERP thus results in an
estimated savings of $243.4 million.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ CARB Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the
Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration
Program Regulation and Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel
Particulate Matter From Portable Engines at vi.-vii.
    \44\ Id. at vii.
    \45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA did not receive any comments suggesting that CARB's standards
and test procedures are technologically infeasible. Consequently, based
on the record, EPA cannot deny California's authorization based on
technological infeasibility.
ii. Consistency of Certification Procedures
    California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures
would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the California test
procedures were to impose certification requirements inconsistent with
the federal certification requirements. Such inconsistency means that
manufacturers would be unable to meet both the California and federal
testing requirements using the same test vehicle or engine.\46\ CARB
presents that the PERP requirements raise no issue regarding test
procedure consistency because the tests procedures incorporated into
the program are existing EPA and CARB test procedures.\47\ Either
agency's test procedures may be used to demonstrate compliance with the
program.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See, e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978).
    \47\ CARB, Request for Authorization at 17.
    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received no comments suggesting that CARB's PERP poses any test
procedure consistency problem. Therefore, based on the record, EPA
cannot find that CARB's testing procedures are inconsistent with
section 202(a). Consequently, EPA cannot deny CARB's request based on
this criterion.
d. Full Authorization Determination for California's PERP Regulations
    After a review of the information submitted by CARB, EPA finds that
those opposing California's request have not met the burden of
demonstrating that authorization for California's PERP should be denied
based on any of the statutory criteria of section 209(e)(2). For this
reason, EPA finds that an authorization for California's PERP should be
granted.

B. Within-the Scope Confirmation

    In our February 9, 2011 Federal Register notice, EPA sought comment
on a range of issues, including those applicable to a within-the-scope
analysis as well as those applicable to a full waiver analysis. EPA
received no public comment in response to our request, including no
public comments on whether EPA should consider CARB's request according
to a within-the-scope analysis of full authorization analysis.
Therefore, we have evaluated CARB's request by application of our
traditional analysis of authorizations. At the same time, CARB believes
it meets the requirements for a within-the-scope confirmation to the
extent that EPA has already authorized the numeric emission standards
referenced in its PERP program. According to our analysis, as discussed
below, we can confirm that the PERP program is within the scope of
previous authorizations issued on September 21, 1995 (60 FR 48981), May
23, 2006 (71 FR 29621), and April 4, 2012 (75 FR 8056).
    If California amends regulations that were previously granted an
authorization, EPA can confirm that the amended regulations are within
the scope of the previously granted authorization. Such within-the-
scope amendments are permissible without a full authorization review if
three conditions are met. First, the amended regulations must not
undermine California's determination that its standards, in the
aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable
federal standards. Second, the amended regulations must not affect
consistency with section 209 of the Act. Third, the amended regulations
must not raise any ``new issues'' affecting EPA's prior authorizations.
    EPA issued an authorization of CARB's diesel emission standards for
1996 and later new diesel cycle engines 175 horsepower and greater on
September 21, 1995 (60 FR 48981). EPA also issued authorizations
applicable to CARB's large off-road spark-ignition engine standards on
May 23, 2006 (71 FR 29621) and April 4, 2012 (75 FR 8056). As discussed
above, the first two within-the-scope criteria regarding protectiveness
and consistency with section 209 of the Act have been established for
the PERP program. Additionally, because registration to such standards
does not appear to present a new issue, and no commenter presented
otherwise, EPA can confirm that CARB's PERP program is within the scope
of the above-noted EPA authorizations, to the extent that the PERP
requirements are reliant upon the emission standards at the heart of
the above-noted authorizations.\49\ To the extent that CARB's PERP
program allows registration of engines and equipment to emission
standards that are not the subject of a previous EPA authorization, EPA
cannot confirm they are within the scope as consideration of those
provisions present ``new issues'' that have not previously been the
subject of an authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ To the extent that any provision in CARB's PERP program,
which is herein confirmed as within the scope, is later construed as
not within-the-scope of EPA's prior authorizations, then a full
authorization is appropriate and granted based upon the full
authorization evaluation as discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Decision

    The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California
section 209(e) authorizations to the Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation. After evaluating California's PERP amendments, and
CARB's submissions, EPA is granting an authorization to California for
its PERP amendments. To the extent that the PERP program allows
registration of equipment for which EPA has already issued
authorizations to California, EPA is confirming that those

provisions are within the scope of its previous authorizations.
    My decision will affect not only persons in California, but also
entities outside the State who must comply with California's
requirements. For this reason, I determine and find that this is a
final action of national applicability for purposes of section
307(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act,
judicial review of this final action may be sought only in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions
for review must be filed by February 4, 2013. Judicial review of this
final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings,
pursuant to section 307(b)(2) of the Act.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As with past authorization and waiver decisions, this action is not
a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt
from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for
rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.
    In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a
supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of
this action on small business entities.
    Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of
5 U.S.C. 804(3).

    Dated: November 29, 2012.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2012-29513 Filed 12-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37561-37562]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13739]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 175, 176, 177, and 178

[Docket No. FDA-2016-F-1253]

Breast Cancer Fund, Center for Environmental Health, Center for
Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Clean Water
Action, Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, Environmental
Defense Fund, Improving Kids' Environment, Learning Disabilities
Association of America, and Natural Resources Defense Council; Filing
of Food Additive Petition; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of petition; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is correcting a
notice entitled ``Breast Cancer Fund, Center for Environmental Health,
Center for Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest,
Clean Water Action, Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice,
Environmental Defense Fund, Improving Kids' Environment, Learning
Disabilities Association of America, and Natural Resources Defense
Council; Filing of Food Additive Petition'' that appeared in the
Federal Register of May 20, 2016 (81 FR 31877). The document announced
that Breast Cancer Fund, Center for Environmental Health, Center for
Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Clean Water
Action, Consumer Federation of America, Earthjustice, Environmental
Defense Fund, Improving Kids' Environment, Learning Disabilities
Association of America, and Natural Resources Defense Council filed a
petition proposing that we amend and/or revoke specified regulations to
no longer provide for the food contact use of specified ortho-
phthalates, but omitted two items. This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Randolph, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-275), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2016-11866, appearing on page
31878 in the Federal Register of Friday, May 20, 2016, the following
correction is made:
    On page 31878, in the third column, under the heading ``Sec.
175.300 Resinous and Polymeric Coatings,'' the

document is corrected to add ``Butyl phthalyl butyl glycolate (CAS No.
85-70-1)'' and ``Ethyl phthalyl ethyl glycolate (CAS No. 84-72-0)'' in
alphabetical order.

    Dated: June 7, 2016.
Dennis M. Keefe,
Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2016-13739 Filed 6-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6827]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02599]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9936-88-Region 8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the California Gulch
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Operable Unit 1 (OU1) Yak Tunnel/Water
Treatment Plant; and Operable Unit 3 (OU3), Denver & Rio Grande Western
Railroad Company (D&RGW) Slag Piles/Railroad Easement/Railroad Yard, of
the California Gulch Superfund Site (Site), located in Lake County,
Colorado, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public
comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
The EPA and the State of Colorado, through the Colorado Department of
Public Health and the Environment, have determined that all appropriate
response actions at OU1 and OU3 under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by March 10, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1983-0002, by mail to Linda Kiefer, Remedial Project Manager,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR-SR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129. Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Kiefer, Remedial Project
Manager, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR-SR,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' Section of
today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of
Partial Deletion for all of OU1 and OU3 of the California Gulch
Superfund Site without prior Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion
because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates
no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this partial
deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no
adverse comment(s) on this partial deletion action, we will not take
further action on this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. If we
receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of
Partial Deletion and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate,
address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Partial
Deletion based on this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. We will
not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at
this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this Federal
Register.
    This partial deletion pertains to all of OU1 and OU3. Operable Unit
2 (OU2), Malta Gulch Tailing Impoundments and Lower Malta Gulch Fluvial
Tailing; Operable Unit 4 (OU4) Upper California Gulch; Operable Unit 5
(OU5), ASARCO Smelters/Slag/Mill Sites; Operable Unit 7 (OU7), Apache
Tailing Impoundment; Operable Unit 8 (OU8), Lower California Gulch;
Operable Unit 9 (OU9), Residential Populated Areas; and Operable Unit
10 (OU10), Oregon Gulch, were previously deleted from the NPL. Operable
Unit 6 (OU6), Starr Ditch/Stray Horse Gulch/Lower Evans Gulch/Penrose
Mine Waste Pile; Operable Unit 11 (OU11), Arkansas River Floodplain;
and Operable Unit 12 (OU12), Site-wide Surface and Groundwater Quality,
are not being considered for deletion as part of this action and will
remain on the NPL.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p.306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987
Comp., p.193.

    Dated: January 15, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-02599 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


ASTM D19.06 SUBCOMMITTEE

STUDY PLAN FOR THE TESTING OF ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL  WASTEWATER MATRICES IN SUPPORT OF ASTM STANDARD D7575  FOR USEPA’s RECONSIDERATION OF THIS METHOD IN THE  FORTHCOMING METHOD UPDATE RULE

Prepared for:

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Engineering and Analytical Support Branch

September, 2011

INTRODUCTION

 This document is in response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) Office of Water, Engineering and Analytical Support Branch request to conduct and  provide test results from additional industrial water matrices in support of its reconsideration of  ASTM Standard D7575 (Standard Test Method for Solvent-Free Membrane Recoverable Oil and  Grease by Infrared Determination) for inclusion in EPA’s forthcoming Method Update Rule  (MUR).

 The remainder of this document provides the details of the draft study plan for  conducting the additional testing.

STUDY NAME

 The name of this study is: “Testing of Additional Industrial Wastewater Matrices in  Support of USEPA Reconsideration of ASTM Standard D7575 in the Forthcoming Method  Update Rule.”

STUDY DIRECTION AND SPONSOR

 This study is under the direction of ASTM D 19 Water. The study is being sponsored  and managed voluntarily by the technical members of the ASTM D19.06 Sub-committee for  ASTM Standard D7575.

STUDY DESIGN

Summary

 The design of this study will be similar to those in the previous single-laboratory studies  used for standardization of ASTM D7575. In summary, wastewater from applicable industries  acceptable to the study objectives will be collected according to standard EPA protocols and  shipped to the OSS laboratory for initial screening of oil and grease by ASTM Standard D7575  to ensure the concentration within the sample is within the range of the method. The industrial  matrices that pass this screening will then be sent to a designated laboratory for oil and grease  determination by EPA Method 1664 and ASTM Standard D7575. Upon completion of sample  analyses, ASTM D19.06 sub-committee will review the results and prepare a written study  report, which will then be submitted to EPA’s Engineering and Analytical Support Branch.

Sample Matrices

 A minimum of three industrial matrices will be collected and evaluated for this study.  The sample collection process will follow the sampling procedures of EPA’s Freon replacement  studies during the development of EPA 1664, whereby one large single grab is collected and  sample bottles are split from that original grab while being mixed. The minimum three matrices

 will be of the following categories (examples of the types of matrices that are being sought are  given):

• Petroleum Refining and Related Industries – SIC 29 (e.g. refinery facility that processes  raw crude oil into multiple petroleum products including petroleum grease-related  products)

• Food and Kindred Products Manufacturers – SIC 20 (e.g. meat processing facility that  performs a full spectrum of animal processing including slaughtering, meat product  manufacturing, and rendering beef and/or pork )

• Chemicals and Allied Products – SIC 28 (e.g. chemical manufacturer that falls within  EPA’s regulation category of organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers (OCPSF) )

The goal of sample collection of these matrices will be to ensure that the total oil and grease  concentrations are within the ASTM D7575 operating range (5ppm – 200ppm).

Study Methods

 The two methods used for this study will be EPA Reference Method 1664 (hexane  liquid/liquid extraction) and ASTM Standard D7575.

Study Laboratories

 The laboratories identified for this study will include OSS for initial screening of  matrices to ensure that they are within the operating range of D7575 and a centralized  commercial laboratory using EPA Method 1664 and ASTM D7575 for oil and grease on the  same collected industrial matrix samples.

Standardized Quality Control Tests

 Under this study, the following standardized quality control (QC) tests will be performed  with each matrix, for each of the two methods:

• Field matrix sample in triplicate  • Field matrix sample spike (hexadecane and stearic acid per EPA Method 1664 protocol)  • Field matrix sample spike duplicate (hexadecane and stearic acid per EPA Method 1664  protocol)  • Reagent blank  • Laboratory Control Spike  • Laboratory Control Spike Duplicate

 Statistical Analysis

Precision of Triplicate Field Sample Analyses – Triplicate analyses of each matrix will be  tested for precision by calculating the percent relative standard deviation (standard deviation  divided by the mean concentration X 100).

Accuracy and Precision of Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate Analyses - The matrix  spike and matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) test is used to assess method performance in the  sample matrix. Analytes of interest (hexadecane and stearic acid) are added to a field sample  aliquot that is then thoroughly homogenized and split into two spiked replicate aliquots for  analysis. One of these replicates is identified as the matrix spike sample and the other is  identified as the matrix spike duplicate sample. The recovery of the analytes relative to the spike  concentration is determined in each sample. Accuracy is measured from the difference in  determination of the spiked sample and unspiked field sample divided by the spiked amount,  multiplied by 100. The precision of the determinations is assessed by measuring the relative  standard deviation of recovery.

Accuracy and Precision of Laboratory Control Spike and Laboratory Control Spike  Duplicate - The laboratory control spike and laboratory control spike duplicate (LCS/LCSD) test  is used to assess method performance in a controlled reference matrix. Analytes of interest  (hexadecane and stearic acid) are added to reagent water that is then thoroughly homogenized  and split into two spiked replicate aliquots for analysis. One of these replicates is identified as  the laboratory control spike sample and the other is identified as the laboratory control spike  duplicate sample. The recovery of the analytes relative to the spike, are determined in each  sample. Accuracy is determined from the average of the two recoveries of spiked samples  divided by the spiked amount, multiplied by 100. The precision of the determinations is assessed  by measuring the relative standard deviation of recovery.

Study Report

 Upon final review of the sample analyses, the ASTM D19.06 subcommittee will draft a  report of the study findings. Once approved by the ASTM D19.06 Sub-committee, the report  and raw data will be sent to the EPA’s Engineering and Analytical Support Branch.

Study Timeline

 The goal is to complete this study by November 15, 2011.


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency= s Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA \ Office of Water \ Office of Wastewater Management 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2040 0235 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. _ X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. _ X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes _ X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. _ X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative; Transportation Equipment Cleaning ( TEC) Point Source Category ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR # 2018.02 9. Keywords Pollutant management plan, transportation equipment cleaning, Tank car cleaning, rail car cleaning, pretreatment standards, effluent limitations guidelines 10. Abstract EPA issued a final guideline for the TEC point source category on August 14, 2000. The final rule included a regulatory compliance option which allows certain facilities to develop a Pollutant Management Plan ( PMP) in lieu of meeting numeric standards. Facilities have the option to develop this plan if it would be a more beneficial compliance alternative. The PMP is only available for indirect dischargers. The PMP includes requirements for recordkeeping and paperwork not included elsewhere in another Information Collection Request ( ICR). This ICR presents estimates of the burden and costs to the regulated community and pretreatment control authorities for data collection and recordkeeping associated with implementation of the PMP.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with A P@ and all others that apply with A X@) a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with A P@ and all others that apply with A X@) a. P Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 183 b. Total annual responses 183 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 17,869 d. Current OMB inventory 19,144 e. Difference ( 1,275) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment ( 1,275) 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 0 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 0 d. Current OMB inventory $ 0 e. Difference $ 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With A P@ and all others that apply with A X@) a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. _ x Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. Q Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes _ x No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Jack Faulk Phone: 202 564 0768 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): e information is being collected= f information; en estimate; e of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); e and extent of confidentiality; and to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official James A. Hanlon, Director Office of Wastewater Management Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information OMB 83 I 10/ 95