MEMORANDUM

TO:  Portland Cement NESHAP Docket

FROM:  Keith Barnett, USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

DATE:  March 23, 2007

SUBJECT:  March 23, 2007, Meeting between US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and Representatives of Ash Grove Cement., at the Ariel Rios
Building, Washington D.C.

Introduction and Objectives

Representatives from the EPA and the Ash Grove Cement met to discuss Ash
Grove’s plan to perform testing of an activated carbon system at the
Ash Grove Plant in Durkee,OR.

Attendees included Mr. William Wehrum, EPA Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Mr. Fran Streitman of Ash Grove Cement.
Attending by phone was Mr. Keith Barnett, the Project lead of the
Portland Cement NESHAP.

During the meeting Ash Grove explained their reasons for performing this
test and the test plan.  Copies of the test plan and test results would
be sent to EPA.

 PAGE

 PAGE   6


2 of the State's 58 counties, or 2 areas involving the State's 58
counties are severe nonattainment areas in California.

		That's the San Joaquin Valley, which is a prisoner of its geography.
It's surrounded by mountains.  It's a bowl filled up with the pollution
from Sacramento and San Francisco and L.A.  Poor farmers there and their
cows are about the only activity that could generate any kind of
emissions in San Joaquin.

		And the other is the massive South Coast Air Quality Management
District, which includes Los Angeles and Orange and Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties, where those 18 million people we talked about live.
 Even there, even there, our air quality is much better today than it
was when the Clean Air Act was originally envisioned, passed, and is
continuing to get better on an ongoing basis.

		The second piece, and this has been one that's been ongoing on every
rule that CARB has adopted in the last several years, is their cost
considerations.  They are simply laughable.  The industry estimates of
cost, as Jon pointed out, are around -- well, it's actually $12.9
billion.

		This agency has no concept of the economics of operating businesses,
and that $12.9 billion doesn't come out of the bid that a contractor
makes on a project.  It comes out of the profit that's left after the
project is done.  And that's in an industry like ours right now where
there is virtually no margin, there is no ability to financially address
these requirements of this regulation.  It is not financially feasible.

		We honestly think that, and we said this, I've been involved in this
thing since 2003.  We have told the agency during that period of time
and continue to make this case that our industry will, in fact, and does
and is, in fact, cleaning up its emissions at a rapid pace, but it's
entirely dependent on the OEM manufacturers who have to meet your
standards.

		And we think that the Tier 4 machines, if they can be officially
developed, and you guys would know better than we are where they are on
that, but we see an announcement every day or so about Komatsu has a
Tier 4 interim, and John Deere has a Tier 4 for one tiny segment of
their engine families.  When those are fully available, we think that
this agency and our industry can cooperatively demonstrate that the
emissions from our equipment will be reduced to the levels required by
this rule within a period that's maybe 5 years beyond what the current
rule standard is.

		We've said that all along.  We still believe 2025 to be the deadline
for our industry to meet these requirements, and we think it's doable.
We don't think this depression is going to continue forever, but we do
know that the housing industry is not going to engage in another bubble.
 And so, it will be a long, slow climb out of this hole.

		Any questions, guys?

		MR. SIMON:  A couple of comments maybe.

		MR. DAVIS:  Sure.

		MR. SIMON:  And maybe a question.  Thank you for your testimony, Mr.
Davis.

		In response to your first question on the hearings in California, we
did note -- I just want to note, and I don't know if you've got a copy
through CIAQC or not, but we did send a letter back last week to CIAQC
and I think a number of other companies that are represented ---
organizations that were looking for a hearing in California.

		Really don't think it's practical or needed.  So I think our decision
right now currently is that this will be the hearing for the waiver.  So
you should get a copy of that letter, and we're happy to talk about
that.  But as of right now, we're having this here.  So we did -- I
didn't want to leave you hanging on that one.

		MR. DAVIS:  Larry, did you get a copy of that?

		MALE SPEAKER:  Yes.

		MR. DAVIS:  Okay.  We'll talk later then.

		MR. SIMON:  And then, secondly, on the Tier 4 status, I note that that
is coming, and it is coming.  I mean, we certainly think it's --

		MR. DAVIS:  We firmly believe that it's coming.  We just think it's
going to -- as with many of your regulations, they do compel the
manufacturers to meet the standards.  It's just unfortunate that the
burden for compliance in the California case is not placed on the
manufacturers, but placed on the end-users.  And those end-users do not
have the capability of meeting the requirements on their own.  They
absolutely depend on the manufacturers to supply the products.

		MR. SIMON:  Thank you.

		MR. DAVIS:  Thank you.

		MR. DICKINSON:  Mr. Davis, you made a comment about EPA's
consideration of the portable equipment?

		MR. DAVIS:  Yes.

		MR. DICKINSON:  I would invite you to submit separate comment on that.

		MR. DAVIS:  We'll be happy to.

		MR. DICKINSON:  So we can keep the record straight on each.

		MR. DAVIS:  Right.

		MR. DICKINSON:  Also, with regard to the cost estimates of compliance
with the rule overall, whether it's $3 billion or $12 billion, and this
comment goes to the other people that have testified today.  It would be
helpful to understand how that cost --

		MR. DAVIS:  The financial underpinnings?

		MR. DICKINSON:  Well, whether that -- the financial underpinnings,
thank you.

		MR. DAVIS:  We can supply that data.

		MR. DICKINSON:  Whether that's the economic burden or whether that's a
cost per unit or whatever the underpinnings are of that.

		MR. DAVIS:  We can absolutely supply that data.  We actually hired a
real Ph.D. from UC-Davis, who developed that information, and we'll be
glad to provide it to you.

		MR. DICKINSON:  Thank you.  Great.

		MR. DAVIS:  A card or some person that I can address things to?

		MR. SIMON:  Thanks.  While we're doing this, next up is Antonio Santos
from MECA.

		[Pause.]

		MR. SANTOS:  My name is Antonio Santos.  Once again, Director of
Special Projects at the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association,
based here in Washington, D.C.

		Just wanted to extend apologies from Joe Kubsh, Executive Director of
MECA, who wanted to be here but is traveling in Detroit this week,
meeting with the EPA actually as it is.

		The presentation today will cover, once again, from the technical
perspective generally retrofit emission controls for off-road diesel
engines.  MECA in the past has provided comments to ARB regarding their
off-road rulemaking, both early on, before 2007, as well as comments
last year when they did the amendment process.  Once again, the summary
here basically is that MECA supports ARB in its waiver request, and
hopefully, after this presentation, you get a better sense of the
technologies that are available and that they are feasible and safe.

		Just a quick who we are.  Many of you probably already know about MECA
and its member companies.  MECA does represent the world's leading
manufacturers of emission control technology.  So we're talking, of
course, here about Level 3 verified devices, encompasses many of the
MECA members.  They represent catalyst manufacturers, substrate
manufacturers which the catalyst goes on, other exhaust component
manufacturers, as well as the integrators that bring all of these
technologies together.

		MECA members have extensive experience, both technical and
manufacturing and installation wise, for the application of emission
control technologies for both on- and off-road vehicles and equipment.
And MECA members have verified many of the on-road and off-road
technologies listed by EPA, ARB, and also in Europe, the VERT process in
Switzerland.

		Just a quick comment, too, about ARB.  I mentioned earlier about the
number of verified devices that are available and the change over the
past couple of years.  Obviously, one of the concerns is about the
number of available off-road technologies.  As I will note in the
presentation, there are currently 10 available retrofit technologies,
which is an increase from when the rule was first proposed of about 6
back in 2007.  And that number, although it seems small, is not
insignificant.  The process and the cost that's involved with verifying
technologies or, in some cases, re-verifying technologies is not a small
number.  We're talking upwards of some $500,000 to $1 million, depending
on the type of technology that you're going after.

		So in the same way that the other industries have been affected by the
current economic climate, in the same way, MECA members have as well.
And as ARB pointed out in their presentation, MECA does look for in its
members that regulatory certainty that comes from establishing a
rulemaking with definitive timelines.  And in turn, of course, the MECA
members have jobs, as well as economic benefits, as well as the health
benefits that come from promulgating the rulemaking.

		So the next couple of slides we're just going to quickly go through.
Obviously, we've talked about this stuff in a broad brush from other
presentations about the nature of the different technologies that are
available, the Level 3 technologies that are available for off-road.
This slide just points out that wall-flow diesel particulate filters
offer the highest PM reduction efficiency.  These are ARB Level 3
devices, meaning greater than 85 percent PM reduction.

		They also get large reduction in air toxics from the catalyzed DPFs in
the same way that DOCs also get high reductions in toxics, the
catalyzing action gets the large reduction in toxics as well, in
addition to PM.  Greater than 250,000 retrofits already worldwide.
Greater than 6 million OE applications, and as we've noted, this is the
same technology that's currently on on-road model year 2007 and newer
trucks.  So a large experience base here with the effectiveness of DPFs.

		In this case, specifically for this slide, talking about passive DPFs,
which use catalysts and the available heat coming out of the engine to
burn the captured soot.  Of course, in order for that to work, you need
these specified exhaust temperature requirements coming out of the
engine, a certain duty, a certain time, and temperature in order to burn
off that soot.  And as we noted earlier, the number of verified
technologies.  Currently, there are five passive DPFs verified by ARB
for off-road.

		Just the next few slides just have a couple of pictures of some
passive DPF installations.  Obviously, we saw earlier some similar
installations that had safety issues, which I'll talk a little bit more
in detail later.  But this just points out at least pictures of
successful installations that have been done.

		Here you have an excavator, a drill, two drills.  I think all of these
were in New York for -- we'll talk a little bit about this Croton water
treatment project.  But once again, pointing out that we're well aware
of the policy currently going on in California in terms of their interim
policy for safety with Cal/OSHA.

		Obviously, some of these, given the current interim policy, may not
actually be allowable now because of the zero masking that's being
allowed currently.  But the point here is showing that in the past, all
of these technologies were installed and were done safely and
successfully over a certain defined period of time for these retrofit
projects.

		Same here, more passive DPF installations – rubber-tired loader, a
Caterpillar excavator, and a wheel loader as well.

		Besides passive DPFs, there are also active DPFs, typically suited for
off-road applications or on-road as well with low exhaust temperatures
or very high PM out.  There are typically two kinds right now that are
available out there.  There is catalyzed wall-flow filter with
electrical regeneration and uncatalyzed wall-flow filters with fuel
burners for regeneration.

		The catalyzed wall-flow with electrical regeneration is one of the
newer ones that just got verified within the past few months.  Once
again, there are five DPFs, active DPFs currently verified by ARB for
off-road engines.

		And just some installations here as well.  This is forklifts, cranes,
bulldozers, a cherrypicker-type piece of construction equipment, all
installed with the active DPFs.  Go ahead.  Sorry.

		MR. HOROWITZ:  I'm just wondering, can you point that -- do you have a
pointer?  Can you point them out?

		MR. DICKINSON:  Yes, just point at the screen with it.

		MR. SANTOS:  Oh, here.  You have one here.  Here, down in here.
Typically, these are -- the original muffler may have been in there, the
replacements.

		Also, you have NOx and PM combined integrated solutions emerging as
well.  One currently verified by ARB, the DPF Lean NOx Catalyst by one
of the MECA members was verified in the past year for at least 25
percent NOx reduction.  Nothing yet for DPF plus SCR, which would get
greater than 70 percent NOx reduction, but there are MECA members
currently in the process of looking to verify technologies, off-road
devices, integrated devices for DPF and urea SCR.

		Here are a couple here as well.  Here.  There.  Here.  Here, these
three here are all lean NOx catalysts plus DPFs.  This here is an SCR
plus DPF.  All as part of demonstration projects.

		Once again, the issue of safety and visibility is something here that
would need to be discussed.  Obviously, MECA believes as part of what's
going on in the current process, the Cal/OSHA and ARB and MECA is also
involved in that, that some level of masking should be allowed.  In
fact, some international standards like ISO 5006 allows for the use of
mirrors and/or cameras to consider to be safe.

		So, at the end of the day, of course, MECA will have to adhere to
whatever comes out of that process.  And as it stands right now, any
level of masking is not currently acceptable, and we understand that.
But it's part of the discussions that are going on and the measurements
that are going on, we believe that some level of masking is still
considered to be safe.

		The next slide just touches on some of the construction retrofit
experience that is out there.  MECA member companies have extensive
experience with the construction retrofit project.  Really just put this
one up here to show that these two projects, the Boston "big dig"
project demonstration and NESCAUM/MECA off-road were done in the late
'90s.  So the Boston big dig only used DOCs.  The NESCAUM/MECA one did
do DOCs, active DPFs, and passive DPFs.  But the point being that this
was done in the late '90s.  So the volume of experience that has been
accumulated by MECA members in terms of retrofitting construction
equipment.

		More currently, the New York City local law, which requires use of
low-sulfur diesel and best available control technology for off-road
equipment used in all city construction projects.  This New York City
Croton construction project, which some of those pictures showed, falls
under this.

		It's a $1.5 billion water treatment plant in the north Bronx.
Twenty-five to 30 off-road pieces of equipment were retrofitted, mostly
Tier 2 and Tier 3 engines, all with ARB or EPA verified retrofits --
passive, active DPFs, as well as the DPF plus SCR system.  As well as
overall some of these projects in Manhattan down at Ground Zero, as well
as around Manhattan in general is another 118 Tier 1 and Tier 2 engines
have been retrofit with DPFs.

		As talked about earlier, sort of in a negative context, but the
off-road showcase program.  There are a number of vehicles that were
planned to be retrofit.  Currently, they have not retrofit all of them.
But once again, it is yet another piece of a target for retrofit
experience.  As well as LAX, 73 vehicles retrofitted with Level 3
devices, both passive and active DPFs.

		Texas, new technology research development funding, just to point out
that there are other construction retrofit experience, things going on
that are not directly tied to PM, which is what's driving the California
rule.  Three manufacturers were funded to demonstrate retrofit PM plus
SCR systems for on- and off-road applications.

		And in Europe as well, as we noted a MECA member as having verified
technology in Europe.  There is an online database of over 7,000 pieces
of construction equipment that have been fitted with DPFs showing little
to no safety or other issues.

		This slide basically talks about the challenges for off-road
retrofits.  Obviously, what's been brought up today talks a lot about
the comparison of retrofit technologies both for on-road versus
off-road, and it's an obviously conclusion that off-road retrofits pose
more challenges for retrofit vendors when it comes to installing them on
pieces of equipment.  First and foremost, obviously, if you're talking
about some of these Tier 0 pieces of equipment, higher emissions for
off-road engines -- off-road engines especially before 1996, when the
Tier 1 standards kicked in -- higher engine PM out obviously will cause
more issues.

		More diverse equipment and equipment applications than on-road, yet
another clear and obvious point about the nature of construction
equipment.  More older equipment.  You get wide horsepower ranges.  As
small as 50 horsepower, up to greater than 1,000 horsepower.  Obviously,
the bigger the horsepower, the bigger the engine.  You might need
multiple filters.  So that, obviously, will increase the cost.

		Obviously, by putting on some of these pieces of equipment, you do run
into issues of equipment stability.  Emissions profile can change with
the application.  Obviously, on a given project, you might data log a
vehicle and it has a certain emissions profile for that application or
for that project, and then that same piece of equipment has a different
duty cycle for a different project, it can change the emissions profile.
 And that's another issue that has to be taken into account.  So that
DPF that might have been appropriate for that current project might not
be appropriate for a different project.

		Just in general, of course, more rigorous operating environment.  I
don't know if anybody's ever been on a construction site -- vibrations,
dust, uneven surfaces.  Obviously are going to require use of high-grade
vibration isolators, especially with track drive equipment like
bulldozers, which obviously could increase the cost as well.

		And then packaging constraints, which is probably the number-one thing
that's been brought up today in terms of maintaining driver visibility
and safety, and I have a couple of slides after this that will touch on
that more specifically.

		And then equipment operators can vary by day.  This sort of just ties
into the whole potential training issue.  So you have one piece of
equipment that on one given day or a given week or a given project might
be one person operating that piece of equipment who understands that
there is a control technology installed, but then somebody else on
another project or another week or another day comes on and does not
quite understand that.

		So there has to be a level of understanding and training and for every
end-user about how the emission control technology works on the piece of
equipment.

		So retrofits can be installed safely.  Obviously, once again, as we've
talked about many times already today for many of the speakers, as well
as from ARB, safety is a big issue when it comes to retrofit technology
and even more so when we're talking about off-road.

		Just wanted to point out clearly that, to date, we've talked
specifically about off-road retrofits, to date that there has been an
excellent safety record.  The pictures that I have showed you earlier or
even the ones that you saw earlier from other presentations, there have
been no record of any specific death or fatality or injury due to a poor
installation for off-roads, for off-road technologies.

		And retrofit manufacturers, our members, the installers, the companies
that are under MECA member companies who actually install the
technologies, of course, are using best engineering judgment,
installation practice to ensure the safe installation of devices.  Most
of these things listed out here are pretty common that you would find on
any instruction, per instruction manual when installing a retrofit on an
off-road piece of equipment.

		Number one obviously a big one.  Do not obstruct operator line of
sight.  Do not obstruct the equipment operation, operator access,
mounting on safety cages.  I think that was potentially considered as a
way to potentially install a retrofit as to elevate it above so that the
line of sight of the driver could see straight through, and you elevate
it high enough, you could see through.  Obviously, if you're going to do
something like that, that the mount can actually support the weight of
the emission control device.

		Heat shields, that was also brought up as well.  Obviously, heat is a
very important issue when it comes to installation of these new
technologies.  A lot of the studies that have been done by MECA not just
for diesel vehicles and DPFs, but other emission control technologies
have shown that the heat that comes from the emission control device is
the same, if not lower, than the original muffler that it replaced.

		And if not, obviously, you would want to measure this in advance.  You
can use proper heat shields to help with diminishing the heat exposure.

		And of course, last, inspect per manufacturer's instructions on a
regular basis.  So after you've installed the piece of equipment, on a
regular basis you're going out into the field and checking that the
retrofit is operating as it was installed.

		And once again, ARB's current regulation provides for this process for
retrofit safety oversight, and as we're all well aware now that ARB is
currently in the midst of discussions with Cal/OSHA to come up with some
sort of amendments that will address what is considered to be safe.
Once again, MECA believes that some level of masking should be allowed
when we're talking about the sides or the front or the back and that
mirrors could be used to help address this.  But at the end of the day,
of course, whatever comes out of that process MECA will abide by.

		And this is just my last slide.  Retrofits have been proven for
off-road applications.  I think partly what we're talking here today a
lot about, are these retrofits technically feasible in some sort of
theoretical.  I think we're trying to state here that not just in
California, but outside of California and the U.S. where retrofits are
not mandated, that there has been experience installing retrofits on
off-road pieces of equipment.

		These technical considerations for successful off-road retrofit
projects basically applies to all retrofits.  But just as important, if
not more important on the off-road side, the application engineering up
front, matching the right technology to the specific vehicle or piece of
equipment.  This is the data logging that's done up in advance to ensure
that when you look at this piece of equipment, does it run hot enough to
allow for you to use that passive DPF, or does it require an active DPF?

		A lot of the times when you see a lot of these or hear about stories
about failures, whether it be in the off-road or on-road arena, it's not
due to the technology itself, which is sound, it's more about the
installation of it itself.  Was there -- did somebody not do the work up
front to know that the duty cycle of this vehicle did not allow it to
get hot enough to be able to burn off the soot so that DPF would work
properly?

		So application engineering very important up front to determine
whether or not what retrofit device can go on or even if one should be
put on that vehicle.  And then, of course, having that proper
professional installation.  A lot of the MECA member companies
themselves manufacture the devices, but there are other companies out
there who actually do the installation.  So, obviously, having not a
fly-by-night type of person to go out there to install these devices,
but somebody who's certified and does it correctly.

		On-vehicle monitors as well.  So after the device has been installed,
any Level 3 device will come with a monitoring kit for both back
pressure and temperature.  So it's very important that those are
installed correctly.  They provide important user feedback on
performance.

		And then maintenance.  This is not like DOCs in the past, where you
install it and forget about it.  You cannot forget it.  Once you decide
to go down this route of installing a Level 3 device, a diesel
particulate filter, active or even a Level 2, there is some level of
maintenance that needs to be done and followed through with.  So all of
these vehicle equipment and retrofit devices require some level of
frequent inspection and maintenance.

		And then just last, the successful retrofits require a cooperative
effort between fleet owners, operators, and technology providers.  At
the end of the day, it's not just about the device itself.  You have to
get understanding and cooperation between the fleet owner, the end-user
and operator themselves, and the technology providers.  Up front, you
have to have the discussions to understand what your fleet looks like
and what emission control devices are appropriate.

		And just last, MECA strongly supports ARB's waiver request.  We in the
past, like I said, have supported ARB in its other ATCMs, in-use ATCMS,
not just for off-road, and we'll be providing more written and detailed
comments by the May 18th deadline.

		MR. SIMON:  Thank you, Mr. Santos.  Appreciate your testimony, and we
look forward to your written comments as well.

		Nick Goldstein?

		MR. GOLDSTEIN:  Good afternoon.  I am Nick Goldstein, the assistant
general counsel for the American Road and Transportation Builders
Association, or ARTBA.  ARTBA represents more than 5,000 members
nationwide involved in all sectors of the U.S. transportation design and
the construction industry.

		I'd like to begin my statement by thanking the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for the opportunity to speak at today's public hearing
regarding the consideration of the California Air Resources Board's
request for a Federal waiver from the EPA allowing the implementation of
ARB's regulations for in-use off-road diesel vehicles.

		ARTBA's many California members rely heavily on off-road construction
equipment to perform core business functions and would be directly
impacted by ARB's in-use off-road diesel equipment regulation.
Similarly, if ARB's regulation is eventually adopted by other States,
ARTBA's members nationwide would also be impacted.

		The Clean Air Act grants special status to California due to the
State's unique air quality problems, allowing California to set its own
air quality standards in many areas, subject to Federal approval.  If
approved, this Clean Air Act then gives other States the choice to
either stay with existing Federal standards or opt in to those passed by
California.

		Transportation improvement projects often, by necessity, involve
moving construction equipment across State lines.  A patchwork approach
to State regulation could lead to a scenario where equipment becomes
usable on one portion of a project, but prohibited in another.  The
Clean Air Act does not give California complete authority to enact its
own standards.  There are limitations.

		Among these limitations, California may not set its own standards or
impose other emission-related requirements for new engines which are
used in construction equipment or vehicles or used in farm equipment or
vehicles which are smaller than 175 horsepower.  This preemption lasts
throughout the useful life of the equipment.

		The ARB regulations would apply to apply to all in-use off-road diesel
construction equipment with a rating of 24 horsepower or more and are
thus not allowed by the Clean Air Act.  Further, the Clean Air Act
states that any proposed California standards must be "at least as
protective of the public health" as those on the Federal level.

		Protecting the public health is a commendable objective and one shared
by ARTBA.  EPA, however, must be cognizant of the impact that ARB's
proposed standards would have on public health both within California,
as well as any other States that chose to opt in to the standards if
they are enacted.  Due to the enormous expense of replacing the affected
in-use off-road construction equipment -- in some cases, more than $1
million for each machine -- the cost of sorely needed transportation and
infrastructure improvement projects will likely increase.  This means
that either fewer roads, schools, housing, and levees will be built or
project owners will have to spend more.

		For those projects that go forward, the pace at which they can be
completed could be significantly slowed because the pool of construction
equipment -- of construction firms, I'm sorry, with the proper equipment
to do the jobs will likely be diminished.

		Further, nearly 36,000 people die each year on the U.S. highways, and
many federally funded highway improvements in these States are designed
specifically to address safety issues.  As such, allowing ARB's rule to
go forward could lead to highway improvements being denied and, in turn,
delaying needed safety enhancements that would improve the public
health.

		Also, the Clean Air Act states that California's standards should not
be adopted if California's public health protectiveness determination
for the ARB rule is "arbitrary and capricious" or if "California does
not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions."

		In considering whether or not ARB's rule is arbitrary and capricious,
ARTBA respectfully submits that ARB's failure to consider collateral
negative public health impacts of the off-road diesel rule make the
public health protectiveness determination arbitrary and capricious.
While ARTBA is very supportive of both the EPA and ARB's goal of
reducing particulate matter and NOx emissions, ARTBA does not believe
that ARB has considered fully some of the air quality improvements
already occurring in California and the Nation.  These improvements in
air quality undercut the need for a measure as severe as the ARB
proposal.

		EPA should recognize that reductions in PM and NOx levels will occur
as a direct result of existing Federal regulations.  Dramatic
improvements in emissions levels will come from implementation of
regulations on sulfur levels in gasoline, as well as measures affecting
heavy-duty diesel engines and highway vehicles.

		In fact, regulations took effect in 2006 requiring refiners to meet a
30 parts per million average sulfur level for gasoline with a cap of 80
parts per million.  This fuel will enable vehicles to use emissions
controls which are projected to reduce tailpipe emissions of NOx by 77
percent from passenger cars and as much as 95 percent from pickup
trucks, vans, and sports utility vehicles.  When fully implemented,
these regulations will have the effect of removing 164 million cars from
our Nation's roadways.

		In addition, the EPA will continue implementation of its rule to make
heavy-duty trucks and buses run cleaner.  Pollution from heavy-duty
highway vehicles will be reduced more than 90 percent, resulting in an
additional reduction in NOx levels of 2.6 million tons per year, while
PM will be reduced by 110,000 tons per year.

		EPA has also begun implementation of its rule to regulate emissions
from nonroad diesel engines by integrating engine and fuel controls as a
system to gain the greatest emission reductions.  This is estimated to
result in an additional reduction of 738,000 tons of NOx per year.

		All of these reductions, coupled with EPA's own findings that between
1980 and 2008, gross domestic production increased 126 percent, vehicle
miles traveled increased 91 percent, energy consumption increased 34
percent, population increased 29 percent, while at the same time,
emissions of all 6 principle air pollutants, including NOx and
particulate matter, decreased by 54 percent, show that the air quality
is significantly improving across the Nation and in California without
the ARB rule.

		Finally, the Clean Air Act requires that California standards comply
with the "feasibility constraints" when implementing its rule.  ARTBA
has serious concerns, many of which have been gone over already today,
regarding the specifics and feasibility of ARB's off-road diesel rule.

		ARB's regulation requires the use of technology which, in some cases,
may not available for purchase until 2014.  Further, where technology is
available, the sudden increase in demand caused by the ARB rule could
cause supplies to be exhausted.  Contractors simply may not be able to
purchase the necessary equipment and could be barred from continuing
their work.

		If ARB's rule is fully implemented, there could be profound, negative
impacts on California's infrastructure rebuilding efforts, the health of
the State's construction industry, and its overall economy.  Instead,
ARB must allow technology to catch up to its regulatory goals by
allowing industry more time to develop equipment clean enough and
available enough to meet the standards mandated by the demand created by
its regulation.

		Many of California's larger construction companies have already begun
the process of repowering or retrofitting their fleets in anticipation
of these regulations.  However, smaller companies with less than five
employees, which make up 55 percent of California's industry, will be
severely hampered by the costs of repowering and retrofitting equipment
that, in some cases, are the sole assets of their family-owned
businesses.

		Additionally, many of these smaller companies simply do not have the
resources or access to capital to repower or retrofit their engines and
may be forced to park the equipment, ultimately costing jobs and revenue
to the State's economy.

		Under the annual emission reduction targets required in the ARB
regulation, many contractors will be required to first repower or
retrofit an engine, only to have to turn around a few years later and
replace the entire piece of equipment when the technology to do the job
right finally hits the marketplace.

		In conclusion, ARB's rule does not satisfy the requirements of the
Clean Air Act because it attempts to regulate equipment below 175
horsepower, could lead to public health concerns, and is arbitrary and
capricious.  EPA should recognize this and deny ARB's request for a
Federal waiver.

		ARTBA looks forward to continuing to work with both the EPA and ARB in
encouraging voluntary diesel retrofitting at an attainable pace, rather
than maintaining retrofits at a pace many companies will not be able to
meet.

		Thank you very much.

		MR. SIMON:  Thank you, Mr. Goldstein, for your testimony.  Appreciate
it.  Thank you.

		Anyone else wishing to testify?  We've heard from pretty much
everybody in the room.

		Given that California is -- as we have in previous waiver practice,
California is given the opportunity, if they so choose, to make any
closing remarks or --

		I'm saying California is given a chance to, if they would choose, they
have a chance to come and make any closing remarks, and it's completely
optional.

		MR. WHITE:  Yes.  We would like to make a couple responses.

		MR. SIMON:  Okay.  Please, come on up.

		MR. TERRIS:  Again, this is Michael Terris and Erik White,
representing CARB.

		We'd like to just make a couple responses to some of the comments that
were made today.  First, with regard to Mr. Prescott's comments and his
statement that CARB has no experience in dealing with the construction
industry and safety and that it shouldn't be making determinations
regarding safety.  The way the regulation is drafted, the decisions,
basically CARB will have a review process, but will accept statements
and comments from, first, the installers and the retrofit manufacturers
as to whether the equipment can be safely installed on a specific
application.

		Second, the end-user, the contractor, can submit other documentation
to the executive officer to consider in making his determination after
evaluating all the facts from comments, documentation from engine
manufacturers, from equipment manufacturers, from independent
laboratories.  All of that will be evaluated by the executive officer.
And if there is disagreement with the executive officer's decision,
there is an entire appeals process that can be gone through to make a
final determination.

		And third, CARB has made it very clear that it will accept any
determination by any Federal or State agency that is responsible for
making safety determinations, including the Federal Aviation
Administration and as well as Cal/OSHA, the Mining Administrations, and
any determination by them that the retrofit installation would violate
their rules or regulations CARB would accept.

		Second thing with regard to Mr. Prescott made the point that present
Cal/OSHA rules do not consider rear visibility issues.  CARB has
basically agreed with Cal/OSHA that rear visibility should be a factor
and considered, and in CARB's interim period where it's looking at
visibility impairment and whether or not a retrofit should be installed
is taking that into consideration.  And if rear visibility is impaired,
there is no requirement that it be installed at this point.

		With regard to Mr. Cloud's statement and the AGC petitions, I just
wanted to clarify that AGC did file a petition in December 2008
basically asking for CARB to review the rule and to repeal it.  At AGC's
suggestion, the petition was put into abeyance.  It's an agreement
between the parties and that neither party to date has exercised the
condition of the abeyance agreement to give 2 weeks' notice to sort of
revive the petition and have it addressed.

		Regarding the January 2009 petition, AGC requested that there be a
2-year delay in implementing the fleet average requirements of the
regulation.  CARB did respond to that petition, granting it in part,
denying it in part.  The granting of it basically said that CARB would
review its regulations and hold an executive officer fact-finding
hearing, which it did hold in March of this year, and that it would
present its findings to the board at the April hearing.

		One of the big issues that was raised by just about all the commenters
is the technical feasibility of VDECS, and we want to make it -- it was
basically set forth in our previous submittals to EPA and it was
restated today.  The regulation provides for an exemption.  When a VDEC
is unavailable, then there is no requirement that it be installed.  The
same is true for Tier 3 and Tier 4 engines and vehicles.  If they are
not available, they do not have to be installed.

		The ATA --- I'm sorry, yes, ATA basically indicated that that is not
-- should not be considered by EPA in granting, making its tech
feasibility considerations.  And I just want to basically state that in
the International Harvester, the court recognized that a regulation can
be extremely stringent so long as there is an escape clause, escape
hatch available to the industry.

		We believe that an exemption, which is one of the examples given by
the court in that case, is such an escape hatch and that a second escape
hatch would be that CARB's continuing review of the regulation.  And
that CARB will be able to address issues that if they come up in
appropriate amount of time to allow the industry to fully comply with
the regulation, without being in violation of it.

		And basically, another point that I want to mention lastly is the
mention of the recession.  The recession, as we stated today in our
initial opening presentation, is real.  We don't deny that, and we are
continuing to look at it.  We just believe that for decisions that deal
with how best to address the business in California that EPA should
defer to the policy judgments of the State.

		And lastly, with regard to the recession, I just in the flight out
here yesterday, I was reading about the recession and impact on CSX
railroad company, and basically, they mention that they had a
significant downturn over the last several years.  But in the past
quarter, their business is up 6 percent.  So although this is a severe
economic recession, things do rebound, and that's a consideration that
the CARB will be considering.

		Erik?

		MR. WHITE:  I think Mike hit on -- this is Erik White with the Air
Resources Board.  Mike hit on, I think, many of the issues that were
raised today regarding the technical feasibility surrounding retrofits,
and I think that as you look at that, I think we've seen many examples
of successful retrofits, not only in California, but nationwide and
around the world, particularly in Europe.

		And one of the things that wasn't mentioned here is there was a lot of
focus about retrofits that necessarily need to happen on the outside of
the vehicle.  What wasn't mentioned is one of the things we're seeing is
that as issues with safety have been raised by the regulated industry
and as the retrofit industry has looked to respond to our regulatory
requirements, what we've seen is a significant amount of innovation in
terms of where those devices can be mounted.

		And what we're beginning to see is a significant number of those being
installed under the hood, where there are no visibility impacts, issues
around heat exposure to workers are eliminated because they are under
the cowling.  So I think, as we've looked at the technical feasibility
of our rule, what we have seen is that not only have the number of
retrofits that have been verified greatly expanded from what was
available when the rule was first approved by our board, is that you're
seeing a greater variety in terms of the ability to retrofit these
vehicles.

		And in fact, the OEMs are involved, whether it's the Caterpillars,
whether it's the John Deeres who have taken and looked at this rule and
seen an opportunity to upgrade older equipment to provide more useful
life to that for the end-user and are working with the retrofit industry
to provide workable, safe retrofit solutions for their products.

		I just wanted to add that to Mike's comments.

		The other comment I wanted to make is in regards to cost because I
think we've heard a lot about the significant costs associated with this
regulation.  And throughout its development and throughout the board's
consideration of this, there was a clear recognition that this is a very
expensive regulation.

		In fact, as the board debated and evaluated the need for this, cost
was certainly one of the most important considerations, along with the
air quality needs or benefits that it provided, as it looked for and
ultimately made that policy decision.  That while an expensive
regulation was clearly a needed regulation -- and during the
development, certainly there was a great deal of evaluation of ARB's
cost numbers.  And in fact, ARB did look at many of the cost numbers
that were developed, including the one that was cited today about a
$12.9 billion cost and held a special workshop specifically to look at
and address that matter.

		And as we looked at those cost estimates, what we found is that they
were significantly biased to the high side and that they presumed
activities that were not required under the regulation or they looked at
not necessarily the least cost compliance option available to fleets and
not taking advantage of the full amount of flexibility that the
regulation required.

		So, again, even after doing that, ARB presented to the board and the
board accepted the numbers that Mike talked about earlier, the $3
billion to $3.6 billion as, in fact, the direct regulatory costs
associated with this regulation.

		Now, clearly, I think we all recognize the world has changed since
2007.  And I think the California Air Resources Board has shown a clear
willingness to relook at the requirements and the economic impacts on
that, whether that's through direct action of the Air Resources Board or
through direct action of the California legislature, to look at
opportunities to still meet our clean air goals, but do it in a way that
provides greater flexibility, additional time, lower cost to end-users.
And in fact, that work continues to go on.

		But because of that, I think it's very clear that California feels
very strongly that those types of decisions should -- are best left to
California to make and working directly with affected stakeholders in
California to understand how what relief is appropriate to balance the
economic impacts of the regulation relative to the environmental
benefits that the regulation provides.

		While we spent a lot of time today talking about the needs to meet
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, what we haven't discussed a lot
is the need to meet State Ambient Air Quality Standards as well, as well
as to address the needs to meet California's diesel risk reduction plan,
which targets significant and early emission reductions of directly
emitted diesel PM.

		So as we look at the benefits of the rule, I think we need to remain
mindful that we need to look broadly in that while National Ambient Air
Quality Standards are certainly one important aspect and goal of the
environmental benefits that the regulation will provide, they are not
the only environmental benefit that California is looking to achieve
with this regulation.

		So, with that, we will close our comments.

		MR. SIMON:  Great.  Thank you.

		Given that, then I will declare this hearing closed.

		As we noted at the outset, the public comment period will remain open
until May 18,2010.  All interested parties are encouraged to provide
their written comments on CARB's authorization request and any comments,
information, data, and evidence presented by persons who testify at
today's hearing, these written comments should be submitted in
accordance with the March 12, 2010, Federal Register notice.

		And I thank everyone for coming, and your testimony today I think has
been very helpful from our perspective.

		Thank you, and good day.

		[Whereupon, at 1:34 p.m., the meeting was concluded.]

 PAGE

 PAGE   80

Alderson Reporting Company

1-800-FOR-DEPO


                             Supporting Statement
                                      for
                        Information Collection Request

             Control of Evaporative Emissions from New and In-Use
                    Portable Gasoline Containers (Renewal)

                                EPA ICR 2213.06

                              Compliance Division
                   Office of Transportation and Air Quality
                          Office of Air and Radiation
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                      PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

1.	Identification of the Information Collection

(a)	Title and Number of Information Collection.

 Control of Evaporative Emissions from New and In-Use Portable Gasoline Containers (Renewal), ICR 2213.06, OMB 2060-0597.

(b)	Short Characterization.

	Under regulations promulgated on February 26, 2007 (72 FR 8428; 40 CFR Part 59, Subpart F), manufacturers of new portable gasoline containers (also "portable fuel container" or "PFC") from 0.25 to 10.0 gallons in capacity are required to obtain certificates of conformity with the Clean Air Act. The rule applies to containers manufactured on or after January 1, 2009 (manufacturers and importers were given until June 30, 2009 and wholesale distributors until December 31, 2009 to dispose of stock manufactured before January 1, 2009). Certificates are valid from the effective date until the end of the production period, to a maximum of five years. This ICR covers the burdens associated with the applications for certification and the required annual reports of successful warranty claims, based on experience during the prior three years of the program. The applications are processed by the Compliance Division (CD), Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA. In essence, an application is in support of an emission limitation of 0.3 grams per gallon per day of hydrocarbons for the mandated five-year useful life of the container. Applicants submit test results conducted in accordance with the regulations, maintenance instructions and warranty information given to the purchasers, copies of the labels, and other information listed in section 4(b). Applications are submitted in no fixed format, although EPA did work with industry informally on application questions and provided non-confidential versions of acceptable received applications ("FOIA applications") as examples to other potential applicants. Applications are submitted electronically to the EPA's engine and vehicle compliance information system (EV-CIS).

	The previous ICR authorization was based on an estimated eight respondents for 250 hours and $32,419.45 in costs, including $20,452 in annualized capital and O&M costs per year.

      The burdens in this ICR are based on experience administering the program from January 1, 2016, through December 2018. Currently, there are 14 active EPA certificates of conformity issued to eight different companies. All certificates were issued for five years. Annual warranty reports are due July 1 for the previous calendar year. The portable fuel container (PFC) companies have not experienced any emission-related warranty claims, so no warranty reports have been received to date. However, every manufacturer must provide warranty reports to the EPA and those reporting estimates are provided later in this supporting statement. The current request estimates eight respondents for 249.65 hours and $27,902 in costs, including $14,010 for capital and O&M costs, including the costs of conducting tests, annually.

2.	Need for and Use of the Collection

(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection.

      Statutory authority for the PFC controls is found in Sections 183(e) and 111 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 7511b(e) and 7414. The EPA is required under Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (Act) to regulate Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from the use of consumer and commercial products. Pursuant to Section 183(e)(3), the EPA published a list of consumer and commercial products and a schedule for their regulation on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15264). Consumer products were included in Group I of the list, and standards were promulgated on September 11, 1998. In the Administrator's judgment, VOC emissions from the use of consumer products contribute to ground-level ozone formation in ozone non-attainment areas. PFCs are a consumer product which has been shown to be deficient in preventing VOCs in the form of fuel vapors from being emitted into the air. The certification program for PFCs was promulgated in 2007 (72 FR 8533; February 26, 2007). The regulations appear in 40 CFR Part 59, Subpart F (40 CFR §§ 59.600 - 59.699).

      The information in a manufacturer's application for certification is needed to ensure that the VOC emission standard will be met during the useful life of the container and that certified containers comply with the labeling, warranty, and other requirements of the regulations. Manufacturers may aggregate containers of like design into one emission family. This saves the manufacturer the expense of testing models of similar but not identical design. The regulations also allow subsequent recertification when a certificate has expired ("carry over"), where design and emissions characteristics are virtually unchanged.

	The record keeping requirements are likewise in support of a demonstration that the emissions family certified will meet the emissions standard in the regulation. The records specified are to be provided to EPA upon request.

      The annual warranty reports are needed to assure that the containers survive normal use and provide EPA important information on the success of its certification program, weaknesses therein, or examples or patterns of noncompliance. Containers showing excessive warranty claims could be candidates for in-use testing by EPA. Although EPA does not have the authority to recall PFCs, the warranty information along with possible in-use testing by EPA could be used as grounds to withhold subsequent certification or to enter into an enforcement action under the Clean Air Act.

(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Information.

	Agency personnel will use the information collected to:

 Determine if a manufacturer's PFCs meet the VOC emission standard when new;

 Issue a certificate of conformity to the manufacturer so that it can market the covered containers;

 Issue carry-over certificates of conformity from a previous production period instead of requiring the manufacturer to perform new tests, but only if the emission data from the previous production period remains the appropriate emission-data unit;

 Issue certificates of conformity to the manufacturer for containers that are substantially similar to the tested prototype and waive the testing process required for a new design ("carry across");

 Determine whether the PFCs are meeting the VOC emission standard in-use; and

 Reject a manufacturer's application if a PFC design is not meeting the VOC emission standard in use or take other appropriate action.

3.	Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

(a)	Non-duplication.

	The information collected includes product and manufacturing specifications, testing documentation, and successful warranty claims. Similar information is collected by the State of California and approximately 13 other states that have adopted the California Portable Gasoline Container regulation. However, the California regulation is different from the federal program in the following areas such that the information is unsuitable for information collection required by the federal rule:

 The test fuel and the temperature cycles used in the federal program represent nationwide ambient temperatures and fuels, while those required in the California regulation reflect California fuels and ambient conditions.

 The federal rule requires the reporting of successful warranty claims concerning fuel containers sold as certified under the rule. While the California regulation also requires that the manufacturer issue warranties, it does not require them to report on the outcomes of successful claims against them.

 	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

      An announcement soliciting public comment on this ICR was published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2019 (84 FR 17159). A copy of the draft ICR was placed in the docket. No comments were received.

(c)	Consultations

	For this renewal, EPA consulted the following individual(s):

Organization			Name					Phone Number

Scepter USA.			Sergio Garza<PHONE_NUMBER>

No Spill, LLC			Tom Cray<PHONE_NUMBER>

Testing Services Group	Brian Campbell<PHONE_NUMBER>

These manufacturers and testing laboratories have been consulted in previous renewals for PFCs. For example, Testing Services Group has previously commented on contract costs for testing and application preparation that was particularly helpful.

(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection.

	Certificates of conformity are issued for the production period of the models covered in the emissions family, not to exceed five years. All certificates to date have been issued for five years. However, when a gasoline container design is a "carried over" or a new version of a container that is substantially similar to a current container ("carry across"), the amount of new information required is substantially reduced. Warranty reports are required by regulation to be submitted annually.

(e)	General Guidelines.

	This ICR adheres to the guidelines for federal data requesters, as provided at 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2), with the exception that the regulation requires that records concerning the application for certification be maintained for five years (except for routine testing data for one year). The five-year requirement is consistent with the maximum production period and the consequent five-year duration of certificates. The retention is necessary to allow the agency to adequately monitor compliance. Information on successful warranty claims is required for each model by July 1 of the following year. There is no requirement to report unsuccessful claims against container warranties. There is no requirement by EPA for the manufacturers to retain that information beyond the extent necessary to report it annually.

(f)	Confidentiality.

      Any information submitted to EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 2.201 Part 2, as stated explicitly in the regulations (40 CFR §59.695). This section sets forth how to make confidentiality claims and how documents raising confidentiality issues will be handled by the EPA.

 	Sensitive Questions.

	This collection does not involve matters of a sensitive nature.

4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested

(a)	Respondents/SIC and NAICS Codes.

	Respondents to this information collection are manufacturers of PFCs. They fall within standard industrial classification (SIC) 3411 and within the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code of 332431 (metal can manufacturing) or SIC 3089, NAICS 326199 (all other plastic product manufacturing).

(b)	Information Requested.

	(i)	Data items.

	The required data items are specifically enumerated in the regulations (40 CFR §59.623):

            (a) Describe the emission family's specifications and other basic parameters of the emission controls. List each distinguishable configuration in the emission family. Include descriptions and part numbers for all detachable components such as spouts and caps.

            (b) Describe and explain the method of emission control.

            (c) Describe the products you selected for testing and the reasons for selecting them.

            (d) Describe the test equipment and procedures that you used, including any special or alternate test procedures you used (see §59.650).

            (e) List the specifications of the test fuel to show that it falls within the required ranges specified in §59.650.

            (f) Include the maintenance and use instructions and warranty information you will give to the ultimate purchaser of each new PFC (see §59.613).

            (g) Describe your emission control information label (see §59.615).

            (h) State that your product was tested as described in the application (including the test procedures, test parameters, and test fuels) to show you meet the requirements of this subpart.

            (i) Present emission data to show your products meet the applicable emission standards. Where applicable, §§59.626 and 59.627 may allow you to submit an application in certain cases without new emission data.

            (j) Report all test results, including those from invalid tests or from any other tests, whether or not they were conducted according to the test procedures of §§59.650 through 59.653. We may ask you to send other information to confirm that your tests were valid under the requirements of this subpart.

            (k) Unconditionally certify that all the products in the emission family comply with the requirements of this subpart, other referenced parts of the CFR, and the Clean Air Act.

            (l) Include estimates of U.S.-directed production volumes.

            (m) Include the information required by other sections of this subpart.

            (n) Include other relevant information, including any additional information requested by EPA.

            (o) Name an agent for service located in the United States. Service on this agent constitutes service on you or any of your officers or employees for any action by EPA or otherwise by the United States related to the requirements of this subpart.

	An additional reporting requirement is listed in 40 CFR §59.628(e):

            Send us an annual warranty report summarizing successful warranty claims by emission family under §59.612, including the reason for the claim. You must submit the report by July 1 for the preceding calendar year.

There is also a one-to-one correspondence between the recordkeeping requirements and the requirements listed in the regulations (40 CFR §59.628):

            (a) Organize and maintain the following records:

            (1) A copy of all applications and any other information you send us.

            (2) Any of the information we specify in §59.623 that you were not required to include in your application.

            (3) A detailed history of each emission-data unit. For each emission-data unit, include all of the following:

            (i) The emission-data unit's construction, including its origin and buildup, steps you took to ensure that it represents production containers, any components you built specially for it, and all the components you include in your application for certification.

            (ii) All your emission tests, including documentation on routine and standard tests, as specified in §§59.650 through 59.653, and the date and purpose of each test.

            (iii) All tests to diagnose emission-control performance, giving the date and time of each and the reasons for the test.

            (iv) Any other relevant events or information.

            (4) Production figures for each emission family divided by assembly plant.

            (5) If you identify your PFCs by lot number or other identification numbers, keep a record of these numbers for all the containers you produce under each certificate of conformity.

            (b) Keep data from routine emission tests (such as test cell temperatures and relative humidity readings) for one year after we issue the associated certificate of conformity. Keep all other information specified in paragraph (a) of this section for five years after we issue your certificate.

            (c) Store these records in any format and on any media, as long as you can promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. You must keep these records readily available. We may review them at any time.

            (d) Send us copies of any maintenance instructions or explanations if we ask for them.

 Send us an annual warranty report summarizing successful warranty claims by emission family under §59.612, including the reason for the claim. You must submit the report by July 1 for the preceding calendar year.

	(ii)	Respondent Activities.

	The applications are in no set format but generally follow the enumerated application requirements specified in §59.623 (see 4(b)(i) above). The respondent will have to document gasoline container specifications in detail, such as physical size, shapes, materials, quality of component fit, and production methods, in submitting its application(s) for certification. The respondent will also perform tests and keep records on them. The respondent must collect and keep information on successful warranty claims for annual reporting. The respondent must also retain records on the units produced, apply serial numbers to individual containers, and track the serial numbers to their certificates of conformity. Many of these activities are performed in the production of any modern consumer product, but clearly some of the information is uniquely required by the gasoline container regulation.

5.	The Information Collected--Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management.

(a)	Agency Activities.

	 During the renewal period the most significant portion of EPA's activity for the PFC regulation will be spent reviewing new applications and renewal applications. Other activities include processing exemptions, exceptions and answering questions concerning details of the testing and certification requirements, including researching the answers and communicating by email and telephone. Submissions to change or modify the application for certification after EPA approval of the application (sometimes called a "running change") must also be reviewed for possible impacts and manufacturers' evaluations thereof. A part of this process involves determining if "carry over" or "carry across" of data from a previous model year or addition of a new container model to an existing emissions family is appropriate or if instead new testing will be required. EPA has the right to select a number of containers for testing to confirm that the containers are indeed meeting the emissions standard, but no confirmatory testing burden is anticipated in this estimate. EPA will also be reviewing the annual submissions of successful warranty claims and processing exemption requests.

(b)	Collection Methodology and Management.

	Applicants submit their applications for certification in the document module of EPA's EV-CIS. All system users go through an initial registration process that includes submission of basic information and assignment of a manufacturer code. Warranty reports must also be submitted through the EV-CIS document module, with no set format.

(c)	Small Entity Flexibility.

	There are several provisions available for small and larger entity flexibility in the regulations. Hardship deadline extensions for compliance with the standard are available where, due to circumstances neither foreseeable nor preventable, compliance would jeopardize the solvency of the company. Exemptions are for up to one year and are renewable. There are also exemptions for containers intended only for export, used for the sole purpose of testing, competition, or for national security. As with other certification programs, small (as well as larger manufacturers) have the ability to carry over emission data from a previous production year. They may also request to use alternative testing methods or emissions data already collected using other procedures. The PFC program currently collects no certification fees.

(d)	Collection Schedule.

	The PFC regulation applies to all gasoline containers as defined in the regulations manufactured on or after January 1, 2009. Information collections are on a production period basis, five years in all cases so far. Warranty reports are on a calendar year basis, with reports due July 1 for the previous calendar year.

6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

	These estimates represent the average annual burden that will be incurred by the affected industry during the three-year period beginning on September 30, 2019, with a margin for error.

(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden.

	The previous ICR, 2213.05, estimated 250.4 hours and $11,967.55 in labor hours and labor costs and $20,400 in startup capital and O&M costs, for a total of $32,419.45 per year for eight estimated respondents, assuming a total of two and a half applications per year.

	This ICR estimates 249.65 labor hours from eight manufacturers. This figure primarily reflects the following adjustments: we conservatively ask for authorization to cover roughly three applications per year, and because warranty violations have not been reported so far, the labor associated with annual warranty reports is decreased. In addition, new manufacturers have entered the PFC industry and some existing manufacturers left the PFC industry, so we assume eight manufacturers will remain in the industry.

      This ICR does not include the costs of developing products that comply with the Clean Air Act, only the burdens of making the showing to EPA that they comply. SGS S.A. (formerly Société Générale de Surveillance) (SGS hereafter), formerly Technical Services Group LLC (TSG), which does nearly all the contract work, states that it charges under $2,000 for application preparation and submission and under $5,000 for testing work. Because the facility does a wide variety of testing, including for these clients, it is difficult to allocate these contracted costs among labor, capital, and O&M, so we may refer to these costs as non-labor costs to the manufacturer and allocate a set amount for application O&M costs to cover contract testing. Currently, TSG has been acquired by SGS and the practice of certifying and testing for a manufacturer is not used to the same degree as previously performed. Through our contacts with manufacturers we are confident we have allocated the appropriate time for manufacturer labor in developing the PFC certification application, supplying reporting and record-keeping compliance information to the EPA, as well as allocating appropriately costs for contract lab testing. Certification and compliance testing are generally determined as a combined contract cost and are recorded in our worksheet as Application O&M costs for all contract testing performed for manufacturers.

This ICR uses $7,500 per application cost for new applications, allocated approximately one third to labor and two thirds to the contractor's remaining O&M costs, following the Regulatory Impact Analysis and the prior ICR. Carry-over applications only require labor costs, with no testing (O&M) costs.

 Estimating Respondent Costs.

      (i) Estimating Labor Costs

      Rates for managers, mechanical engineer technicians, and administrative staff are from the May 2018 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates http:// http:// http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_326100.htm#11-0000 and http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_332400.htm#00-0000). With an overhead multiplier of 1.31, these are $86.56 for management, $52.37 for engineering and technical assistance, and $25.85 for administrative assistance. Applying these figures to the application, warranty, and record keeping labor totals above, the total labor cost is $9,130.

      (ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

      We assume $5,000 in O&M costs for testing, for 2.8 new applications per year, for a total O&M cost of $14,000 per year for the industry. We estimate only one new market entrant over the next five-year certification period, resulting an average annual capital costs of $10.

 (c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.

	  The program is now in place and the considerable startup efforts are in the past. One hour per application by a GS 13, Step 10, EPA employee is estimated for review of the PFC certifications. There are no secretarial or database management costs, as these are too small to differentiate from the much larger EV-CIS baseline as part of the motor vehicle certification information collection. The EPA employee cost is $86.96 per certification review. The EPA labor estimate is based on Office of Personnel Management SALARY TABLE 2017-base (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2015/GS.pdf ). For 2.8 applications per year, the estimated annual Agency burden is $243.49. We anticipate nominal effort in eliciting and reviewing warranty action reports, which to date have included only notice of no warranty actions. We therefor estimate at an average of one hour for each of a maximum of eight manufacturer reports per year for a total of $695.68. The Agency total is therefore 10.8 hours and $939.17.

 	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

The following assumptions were used to estimate the respondent universe and total burden and costs for industry to comply with the various requirements of the rule.
::	We estimate eight manufactures of gasoline containers for the domestic market. This manufacturer estimation is consistent with the prior ICR renewal. There are currently nine manufacturers that have valid certificates, but one manufacturer appears to be leaving the industry.
::	 We conservatively anticipate 14 applications in the next five years, or about 2.5 applications a year.
::	 We expect the majority of the applications we receive over the next five years to require PFC testing.
::	Manufactures will continue to contract for testing services and most certificate application preparation.
(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables
	(i)	Respondent Tally
RESPONDENTS
8
BURDEN HOURS
250
LABOR COST
$13,892
OPERATING COST
$14,000
CAPITALIZED COST
$10
TOTAL COST
$27,902

	(ii)	Agency Tally
EMPLOYEES
1
STARTUP
$0
LABOR HOURS
10.8
LABOR COST
$ 939.17

(f)     Reasons for Change in Burden
	The number of manufacturers remains at eight and we do not anticipate any net changes in that figure in the next three years. The decrease in anticipated costs is due to the removal of three emissions applications.

(g)    Burden Statement

      The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 26 hours per respondent. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0118, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov . Use this site to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select "search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0118 and OMB Control Number 2060-0597 in any correspondence.

Appendix A  -  Detailed Burden Calculation Table


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 27964]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11310]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9812-8]

Draft Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NPDES General
Permit--New Hampshire; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a Notice of Availability of the draft Small
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for New Hampshire,
published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2013. A 30 day
extension to the original comment period was published in the Federal
Register April 4, 2013 and the comment period is currently set to
expire on May 15, 2013. This notice extends the comment period from May
15, 2013 to August 15, 2013.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Newton Tedder, US EPA--Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Mail Code--OEP06-4, Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional information concerning the
draft permit may be obtained between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Monday through Friday excluding legal holidays from: Newton
Tedder, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Environmental Protection
Agency, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This notice extends the public comment period established in the
Federal Register issue of April 4, 2013 (78 FR 20316) (FRL-9799-1). In
the February 12, 2013 issue of the Federal Register (78 FR 9908) (FRL-
13-006 and 9779-7), EPA announced the availability for public comment
of its draft small MS4 NPDES general permit for New Hampshire. In
response to comments received during the Public Hearing, EPA extended
the original comment period by 30 days and published the extension of
comment period in the Federal Register on April 4, 2013. Currently, the
comment period is set to expire on May 15, 2013. This extension is in
response to additional requests received from several commenters to
extend the comment period. EPA is hereby extending the comment period,
which was set to end on May 15, 2013, to August 15, 2013.

    Dated: May 2, 2013.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2013-11310 Filed 5-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P