[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 37214]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16820]

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

ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9963-35-Region 3]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition To Object to
Title V Permit for Scrubgrass Generating Company; Pennsylvania

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an Order, dated May 12,
2017, granting a petition to object to a state operating permit issued
by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to
the Scrubgrass Generating Company for its facility in Kennerdell,
Pennsylvania. The Order responds to a May 4, 2016 petition. The
petition was submitted by the Sierra Club (Petitioner). This Order
constitutes final action on that petition requesting that the
Administrator object to the issuance of the proposed CAA title V
permit.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final Order, the petition, and all pertinent
information relating thereto are on file at the following location:
EPA, Region III, Air Protection Division (APD), 1650 Arch St.,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view copies of the final Order, petition, and other
supporting information. You may view the hard copies Monday through
Friday, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. If you wish
to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24
hours before the visiting day. The final Order is also available
electronically at the following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley, Air Protection Division,
EPA Region III, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to
review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by
state permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes
any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the
expiration of this review period to object to a state operating permit
if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections
raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period,
unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise
these issues during the comment period or that the grounds for
objection or other issue arose after the comment period.
    The May 4, 2016 petition requested that the Administrator object to
the proposed title V operating permit issued by PADEP (Permit No. 61-
00181), on the grounds that the proposed permit contains a condition
whereby Scrubgrass would be improperly permitted a three-year
compliance extension for the hydrochloric acid/sulfur dioxide emission
limit pursuant to subpart UUUUU (National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units) of 40 CFR part 63.
    The Order granting the petition to object to the state operating
permit to the Scrubgrass Generating Company explains the reasons behind
EPA's decision to grant the petition for objection

    Dated: May 19, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2017-16820 Filed 8-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 166)]
[Notices]
[Page 52792-52793]
[DOCID:fr27au10-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62758; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-075]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend the CBOE Stock Exchange Fee Schedule To Change the
Transaction Fees for 24 Securities

August 23, 2010.
    Pursaunt to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 12, 2010, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
CBOE. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by CBOE under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify the Fee Schedule for its CBOE Stock
Exchange (``CBSX''). The text of the proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's Web site http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the
Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    CBSX proposes to modify its transaction fees for 24 securities
currently traded on CBSX (the following symbols: BAC, C, DXD, EMC, EWJ,
F, FAX, FAZ, GE, INTC, MOT, MSFT, MU, NOK, Q, QID, S, SIRI, SKF, T,
TWM, UNG, UWM, XLF). For these securities, assuming their prices do not
drop below $1, the takers of liquidity will receive a $0.0014 per share
rebate, and makers of liquidity will incur a $0.0018 charge. The new
pricing strategy is designed to incent order routing behavior that
selects CBSX as the first destination. By offering customers a
significant rebate to ``remove'' liquidity, the Exchange will offer
overall economic benefits far above those received at other markets.
The changes will take effect on August 16, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \6\
of the Act in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
CBOE members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \8\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2010-075 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2010-075. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2010-075 and should be
submitted on or before September 17, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21342 Filed 8-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Permeation, diurnal, and transport emissions are based on daily gasoline
container throughput data.  Gasoline throughput for 2002 was estimated
based on gas container population and use data obtained from a
California Air Resources Board survey.  The year 2002 residential
container population was estimated from the county-level number of
occupied housing units.  For counties for which 2002 occupied housing
units data were not available, 2000 year housing units data were
projected to 2002 based on county population growth rates.  NOTEREF
_Ref58819189 \f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  7   The year 2002 commercial
container population was estimated from the number of commercial sector
businesses.  County-level nonroad equipment gasoline consumption
estimates were obtained from the NONROAD model.

County-level year 2002 housing unit, commercial facility, and gasoline
throughput data were then used in the emission calculation procedures
described in Control Measure Development Support Analysis of Ozone
Transport Commission Model Rules.  NOTEREF _Ref64438894 \f \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  9   For the permeation, diurnal, and transport emission
processes, these procedures result in daily emission estimates for both
residential and commercial.  These emissions were converted to annual
emissions by multiplying by 214 days based on the assumption that
nonroad equipment is fueled via gas containers primarily between April
and October.  The resulting annual emission estimates were then added to
the spillage and vapor displacement annual emissions estimates, which
were developed from annual NONROAD model gasoline consumption data, to
yield total portable gasoline container annual emissions for each
county.  Summer season work weekday allocation factors were developed
from the NONROAD model temporal allocations and applied to the annual
emissions estimates to obtain summer season workday emissions.  NOTEREF
_Ref64889703 \f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  63

SAMPLE VOC EMISSION CALCULATION:

For Allegheny County:

where (calculated using Ozone Transport Commission methods):

Allegheny Residential Permeation VOC Emissions = 299,065.1043 g/day

Allegheny Residential Diurnal VOC Emissions = 2,582,567.049 g/day

Allegheny Residential Transport VOC Emissions = 141,733.9079 g/day

Allegheny Commercial Permeation VOC Emissions = 41,816.3711 g/day

Allegheny Commercial Diurnal VOC Emissions = 408,285.9064 g/day

Allegheny Commercial Transport VOC Emissions = 255,584.0428 g/day

Annual Permeation, Diurnal, and Transport VOC Emissions = 3,729,052.382
g/day ( 214

Annual Permeation, Diurnal, and Transport VOC Emissions = 798,017,209.6
g/year

Total Annual Emissions = Annual Permeation, Diurnal, and Transport
Emissions + Annual Spillage Emissions + Annual Vapor Displacement
Emissions

where:

Spillage VOC Emissions = 307,338,392.7 g/year

Vapor Displacement VOC Emissions = 93,509,532.4 g/year

Total Annual Emissions = 798,017,209.6 g/year + 307,338,392.7 g/year +
93,509,532.4 g/year

			   = 1,321.5226 tons/year

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = annual VOC emissions( summer work
weekday allocation factor

Summer work weekday allocation factor = summer month proportion( weekday
ratio/number of weekdays in summer

Summer work weekday allocation factor = 0.3600( 0.692/65 = 0.00383
NOTEREF _Ref64889703 \f \h  63

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = 1321.5226( 0.00383 = 5.0639 tons VOC
per day

REFRIGERANT LOSSES (SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>)

This source category covers industrial refrigerant losses from
refrigeration equipment used in such industries as ice cream
manufacturing, meat packing plants, ice manufacturing, and refrigerated
warehousing. Losses occur in both the normal use of refrigeration
systems and during malfunctions. Emissions for each county were
estimated using an employment-based emission factor, and the number of
employees in the following NAICS codes: 311611, 311612, 311613, 311615,
311512-311514, 31152, 311411, 311412,<PHONE_NUMBER>23, 31181, 31132,
31133, 31211-31213, 31171, 312113, 311991, 311999, 325211, 49312,
311612, 42281, 42282. The number of employees in each county was
obtained from County Business Patterns and grown to 2002 using the ratio
of 2002 total Commonwealth employees to 2001 total Commonwealth
employees obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Each
county’s emissions were estimated per the sample calculations below.

SAMPLE NH3 EMISSION CALCULATION:

Annual NH3 Emissions = (Emission Factor)(Number of Employees in Sector)

Where:

Emission Factor = 30 lbs NH3/ employee/ year

Employees = 8265 (Allegheny County)

 = 123.975 tons NH3/ year

PORTABLE GAS CONTAINERS

This category covers emissions from portable gas container use, both
commercial and residential.  Emission estimates account for permeation,
diurnal, transport-spillage, spillage, and vapor displacement emissions.
 Estimated use data is based on survey information from the California
Air Resources Board.  The number of housing units is used as an
indicator for residential containers.  The number of commercial
businesses expected to have at least one gas container is used to
estimate commercial use.  Emissions for 1996 were taken from estimates
developed for the analysis of the OTC Model Rules29.  Emissions were
then projected to 1999 using population as the growth indicatoPUBLIC
OWNED TREATMENT WORKS (3 SCCs)

Public Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) are wastewater treatment plants
typically owned by municipalities.  Emissions are calculated for three
POTW processes:  POTW Wastewater Treatment Processes (SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>),
POTW Biosolids Processes (SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>), and Biosolids Land
Application (SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>).  Biosolids are recyclable solid,
semisolid, or liquid untreated residue from sewage treatment in a
wastewater treatment plant.

Although both VOC and NH3 emissions result from each of the three
processes included in this category, VOC emissions are only estimated
for POTW Wastewater Treatment Processes (SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>) because of the
lack of VOC emission factors for the other processes.  Annual NH3
emission estimates were taken from an on-going Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) inventory development project.  As part of
this Pennsylvania inventory effort, annual VOC emissions were estimated
for the POTW Wastewater Treatment Processes category using the MANE-VU
project Pennsylvania emission activity data (total POTW flow) and an
AP-42 sewage treatment emission factor.  NOTEREF _Ref65136751 \f \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  28   Summer season work weekday emissions were calculated
for each process using a summer season work weekday allocation factor
based on EIIP temporal allocation guidance.  NOTEREF _Ref65137205 \f \h
\* MERGEFORMAT  1

Year 2000 POTW flow data for Pennsylvania facilities were obtained from
the EPA Office of Wastewater Management’s year 2000 Clean Watersheds
Needs Survey.  Year 2002 wastewater flow was estimated from the county
population change between 2000 and 2002.  NOTEREF _Ref58819189 \f \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  7   Year 2000 statewide biosolids generation was obtained
from BioCycle 2000.  Facility-level biosolids production was estimated
based on allocating State generation using facility-level wastewater
flow rates.  Year 2002 biosolids generation was estimated by applying
Bureau of Census county population growth rates to year 2000 generation.
 NOTEREF _Ref58819189 \f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  7   Land application of
total biosolids generation was calculated by multiplying total
generation by 55 percent, which represents the percentage of total
Pennsylvania biosolids generation applied to land.  NOTEREF _Ref65137808
\f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  68   Further information on the annual emission
estimation methods for the processes in this category will be available
in a forthcoming report prepared for MANE-VU.  Where present, point
source emissions were subtracted from the emissions of the corresponding
county.  Each county’s emissions were calculated per the following
sample calculations.

SAMPLE VOC CALCULATIONS:

where:

Emission Factor = 8.9 lbs VOC/millions of gallons flow

Flow = 75,290.54 million gallons (Allegheny County)

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = annual VOC emissions( summer work
weekday allocation factor

Summer work weekday allocation factor = 0.00385  NOTEREF _Ref65137205 \f
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  1

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = 335.04 ( 0.00385 = 1.2899 tons VOC
per day

SAMPLE NH3 CALCULATION:

Where:

G = Annual amount of wastewater processed (MMgal) = 75,290 (Allegheny
Co.)

EFNH3 = Ammonia emission factor of 0.027 lb/ MMgal (Pechan, 2004a)
NOTEREF _Ref107373753 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  64

 = 1.016415 Tons NH3

RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION (7 SCCs)

(Fireplaces: Without Inserts SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fireplaces:  Inserts -
Catalytic, non-EPA-certified SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fireplaces:  Inserts -
Non-catalytic, EPA-certified SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fireplaces:  Inserts -
Catalytic, EPA-certified SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>; Woodstoves - Conventional SCC
2104008010; Woodstoves - Catalytic SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>; and Woodstoves -
Non-catalytic SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>)

Criteria pollutant annual emissions associated with residential heating
with wood were compiled from the 2002 nonpoint source National Emissions
Inventory (NEI).  NOTEREF _Ref65299205 \f \h  31   The 2002 NEI reports
residential wood combustion emissions in seven SCCs, each of which
representing a specific combustion equipment type.  The NEI reports
emissions for the following criteria pollutants:  VOC, NOx, CO, SO2,
PM10-PRI, and PM25-PRI.  The NEI residential wood combustion emission
estimation methodology is based on the national population of each
equipment type and an estimate of the amount of wood burned in each type
of equipment.  The national wood combustion estimates by equipment type
were then allocated to counties using a number of steps.  These steps
incorporated information on heating degree days by climate zone, and the
urban/rural designation and number of single-family detached homes in
each county.  Further details on the annual emission estimation
methodology are available in a forthcoming 2002 nonpoint source NEI
document.   NOTEREF _Ref65299205 \f \h  31

The majority of the residential wood combustion emission factors were
obtained from EPA's AP-42 document.  NOTEREF _Ref59357576 \f \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  39   County-level seasonal throughput percentages developed
for the 2002 NEI were applied in this effort to estimate winter season
work weekday emissions (no residential wood combustion activity was
allocated to summer season months).

SAMPLE SEASONAL CALCULATION (FIREPLACES WITHOUT INSERTS):

Annual PM10-PRI emissions (Allegheny County) = 59.8205 tons VOC per year

Winter work weekday PM10-PRI emissions = annual PM10-PRI emissions(
winter work weekday allocation factor

Winter work weekday allocation factor = 0.0044

Winter work weekday VOC emissions = 59.8205 ( 0.0044 = 0.2632 tons VOC
per day

PORTABLE GAS CONTAINERS

This category covers emissions from portable gas container use, both
commercial and residential.  Emission estimates account for permeation,
diurnal, transport-spillage, spillage, and vapor displacement emissions.
 Estimated use data is based on survey information from the California
Air Resources Board.  The number of housing units is used as an
indicator for residential containers.  The number of commercial
businesses expected to have at least one gas container is used to
estimate commercial use.  Emissions for 1996 were taken from estimates
developed for the analysis of the OTC Model Rules29.  Emissions were
then projected to 1999 using population as the growth indicatoSOLID
WASTE INCINERATION (2 SCCs)

(Commercial/Institutional Solid Waste Incineration SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>)

Solid waste may consist of any discarded solid materials from commercial
or industrial sources. The materials may be combustible or
noncombustible, and are often burned to reduce bulk, unless direct
burial is either available or practical.  The resulting pollutants for
the purpose of this inventory are VOC, NOx, and CO.  On-site
incineration is the confined burning of waste leaves, landscape refuse,
or other refuse or rubbish.  Slash and large scale agricultural open
burning are not included in this emission category.

The emissions for each county were estimated per the sample calculations
below using emission factors and loading factors from AP-42, population
data from the U.S. Census Bureau, and employee data from County Business
Patterns.  Point source emissions, where present, were subtracted from
these emission estimates.

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS:

Commercial/Institutional Solid Waste Incineration:

Annual Emissions = (Emission Factor)(Loading Factor)(Population)

where:

VOC Emission Factor = 9.8 lbs VOC/ton waste burned/year  NOTEREF
_Ref59357576 \f \h  39

NOx Emission Factor = 3.7 lbs NOx/ton waste burned/year  NOTEREF
_Ref59357576 \f \h  39

CO Emission Factor = 37 lbs CO/ton waste burned/year  NOTEREF
_Ref59357576 \f \h  39

Loading Factor = 54 tons/1000 people  NOTEREF _Ref59357576 \f \h  39

Population = 1,269,904 people (Allegheny County)  NOTEREF _Ref58819189
\f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  7

VOC Emissions:

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = annual VOC emissions( summer work
weekday allocation factor

Summer work weekday allocation factor = 0.00275  NOTEREF _Ref60652619 \f
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = 336.0166( 0.00275 = 0.9240 tons VOC
per day

	CO Emissions:

Summer work weekday CO emissions = annual CO emissions ( summer work
weekday allocation factor

Summer work weekday allocation factor = 0.00275  NOTEREF _Ref60652619 \f
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4

Summer work weekday CO emissions =1268.6341( 0.00275 = 3.4887 tons CO
per day

Winter work weekday CO emissions = annual CO emissions ( winter work
weekday allocation factor

Winter work weekday allocation factor = 0.00275  NOTEREF _Ref60652619 \f
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4

Winter work weekday CO emissions = 1268.6341( 0.00275 = 3.4887 tons CO
per day

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration:

Annual VOC Emissions = (Emission Factor)(Loading Factor)(Number of
Employees)

where:

Emission Factors are the same as noted above

Loading Factor = 560 tons/1000 employees  NOTEREF _Ref59357576 \f \h  39

Employees = 48,544 employees (Allegheny County)  NOTEREF _Ref62286203 \f
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  2    NOTEREF _Ref62286240 \f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  3

	VOC Emissions:

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = annual VOC emissions( summer work
weekday allocation factor

Summer work weekday allocation factor = 0.00275  NOTEREF _Ref60652619 \f
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = 133.2047( 0.00275 = 0.3663 tons VOC
per day

	CO Emissions:

Summer work weekday CO emissions = annual CO emissions ( summer work
weekday allocation factor

Summer work weekday allocation factor = 0.00275  NOTEREF _Ref60652619 \f
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4

Summer work weekday CO emissions =502.9158( 0.00275 = 1.3830 tons CO per
day

Winter work weekday CO emissions = annual CO emissions ( winter work
weekday allocation factor

Winter work weekday allocation factor = 0.00275  NOTEREF _Ref60652619 \f
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4

Winter work weekday CO emissions = 502.9158( 0.00275 = 1.3830 tons CO
per day

STRUCTURE FIRES (SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>)

Building fires can produce short-term emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, and PM.
 Structure fire emissions were estimated using emission factors, a
loading factor, and a default number of fires per capita (note that
PM10-FIL, PM25-FIL, and PM-CON emission factors were not available).
Population data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau.  Each
county’s emissions were calculated per the following sample
calculations.

Annual Emissions = (Emission Factor)(Loading Factor)(Per Capita # of
Fires)(Population)

where:

VOC Emission Factor = 11 lbs VOC/ton material burned/year  NOTEREF
_Ref65232998 \f \h  16

NOx Emission Factor = 1.4 lbs NOx/ton material burned/year  NOTEREF
_Ref65232998 \f \h  16

CO Emission Factor = 60 lbs CO/ton material burned/year  NOTEREF
_Ref65232998 \f \h  16

Loading Factor = 1.15 tons material/fire

Per Capita Number of Fires = 0.0018 fires/person

Population = 1,269,904 (Allegheny County)  NOTEREF _Ref58819189 \f \h
\* MERGEFORMAT  7

VOC Emissions:

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = annual VOC emissions( summer work
weekday allocation factor

Summer work weekday allocation factor = 0.002427

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = 14.4560( 0.002427 = 0.03509 tons VOC
per day

CO Emissions:

Summer work weekday CO emissions = annual CO emissions ( summer work
weekday allocation factor

Summer work weekday allocation factor = 0.002427  NOTEREF _Ref61684512
\f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  71

Summer work weekday CO emissions =78.8514( 0.002427 = 0.1914 tons CO per
day

Winter work weekday CO emissions = annual CO emissions ( winter work
weekday allocation factor

Winter work weekday allocation factor = 0.003126  NOTEREF _Ref61684512
\f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  71

Winter work weekday CO emissions = 78.8514( 0.003126 = 0.2465 tons CO
per day

TRAFFIC LINE PAINTING (SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>)

Traffic paints are used to mark pavement in applications such as
dividing lines for traffic lanes, parking space markings, crosswalks,
and arrows.  The markings are usually applied by Commonwealth or local
highway maintenance crews.  VOC emissions result from the evaporation of
organic solvents during and shortly after application of the marking
paint.  Each county’s emissions were calculated per “Alternative
Method Three” described in the EIIP emission estimation guidance
document for this category.  The calculation uses a national per capita
emission factor based on 2002 data for national traffic paint
consumption and U.S. population.  Control efficiency, rule penetration,
and rule effectiveness factors were incorporated into the final
calculation.

SAMPLE VOC EMISSION CALCULATIONS:

National per Capita Usage Factor = 39,397,000 gallons/288,368,698 people
 NOTEREF _Ref58819189 \f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  7

National per Capita Usage Factor = 0.1366 gallons/person

where:

Emission Factor = 3.36 lbs VOC/gallon  NOTEREF _Ref62985453 \f \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  72

National per Capita Usage Factor = 0.1366 gallons/person

Population =1,269,904 (Allegheny County)  NOTEREF _Ref58819189 \f \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  7

CE (Control Efficiency) = 20%   NOTEREF _Ref62276184 \f \h  5

RP (Rule Penetration) = 100%

RE (Rule Effectiveness) = 100%

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = annual VOC emissions( summer work
weekday allocation factor

Summer work weekday allocation factor = 0.00356   NOTEREF _Ref64438894
\f \h  9

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = 233.1767 ( 0.00356 = 0.8305 tons VOC
per day

TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES (TSDF’S)

This source category applies to industrial wastewater and hazardous
waste which is generated in many industry types and sizes and include
general waste categories such as contaminated wastewaters, spent solvent
residuals, still bottoms, spent catalysts, electroplating wastes, metal
contaminated sludges, degreasing solvents, leaded tank bottoms,
separator sludges, and off-specification chemicals.  These wastes are
generated at an industrial site and treated, stored and/or disposed
either on-site at the industrial facility or off-site at a commercial
facility.  Operations involved in treatment, storage or disposal of
hazardous wastes include impoundment and tanks, land treatment,
landfills and waste piles, transfer and handling operation, injection
wells, incinerators, and organic compound removal devices.

The VOC emission estimates for this source category were developed by
E.H. Pechan company.26 The estimates were derived from EPA Emissions
Standard Division estimates.  A growth factor , based on 1990 population
and 1999 population projections , was applied to adjust for 1999
estimates.

WINERIES (SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>)

Winery emissions result from the entrainment of ethanol by carbon
dioxide during wine fermentation.  Factors affecting ethanol emissions
are handling techniques, temperature, process equipment design, and
fermenting parameters.  Other sources of emissions from the wine making
process are blending, transferring, racking and storing of the wine.

Emissions were determined using 2002 county-level wine production data
provided by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB).  Because
monthly production data were available, these data were used to develop
the seasonal allocation factors for this category.  The emission factors
for both red and white wines were obtained from AP-42.  Since the
emission factors for the two types of wines are different, but wine type
production data are no longer available, wine production in the
Commonwealth was assumed to be 60 percent white wine and 40 percent red
wine.   Point source emissions, where present, were subtracted from
these emission estimates.  Each county’s emissions were estimated per
the following sample calculations.

SAMPLE VOC EMISSION CALCULATIONS:

Annual VOC Emissions = (0.6 ( White Wine Emission Factor + 0.4 ( Red
Wine Emission Factor) (  (2002 Total Wine Production)

where:

White Wine Emission Factor = 1.80873 lbs VOC/1000 gallons white
wine/year  NOTEREF _Ref64171656 \f \h  75

Red Wine Emission Factor = 4.6236 lbs VOC/1000 gallons red wine/year
NOTEREF _Ref64171656 \f \h  75

2002 Total Wine Production = 8.270 thousand gallons (Adams County)
NOTEREF _Ref61927581 \f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  74

2002 Summer Wine Production = 3.000 thousand gallons (Adams County)
NOTEREF _Ref61927581 \f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  74

White Wine Production Factor = 60% of wine produced  NOTEREF
_Ref63145133 \f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  76

Red Wine Production Factor = 40% of wine produced  NOTEREF _Ref63145133
\f \h  76

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = annual VOC emissions( summer work
weekday allocation factor

Summer work weekday allocation factor = summer month wine
production/annual wine production ( weekday ratio/number of weekdays in
summer

Summer work weekday allocation factor = 3.000/8.270( 0.715/65 = 0.00399
(Adams County)  NOTEREF _Ref60652619 \f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4    NOTEREF
_Ref61927581 \f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  74

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = 0.0121( 0.00399 = 0.0000484 tons VOC
per day

WOOD FURNITURE MANUFACTURING (SCC<PHONE_NUMBER>)

This source category includes establishments engaged in the manufacture
of wood home or office furniture.  VOC emissions result from the
evaporation of solvents used in the finish coats and cleanup procedures.
 Point source emissions, where present, were subtracted from these
emission estimates.  Each county’s emissions were calculated according
to the sample calculations below using a per employee emission factor
and the number of employees in NAICS codes 337122, 337127, 337129,
337211, and 337212.  The number of employees in each county for 2001 was
obtained from County Business Patterns  NOTEREF _Ref62286203 \f \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  2  and grown to 2002 using the ratio of 2002 total
Commonwealth employees to 2001 total Commonwealth employees obtained
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  NOTEREF _Ref62286240 \f \h
\* MERGEFORMAT  3

A 30 percent reduction in VOC emissions was assumed based on a
RACT-based regulation.

SAMPLE VOC EMISSION CALCULATION:

Annual VOC Emissions = (Emission Factor)(Employees)(30% Control
Efficiency Reduction)

where:

Emission Factor = 1,311 lbs VOC/employee/year

Employees = 256 employees (Allegheny County)  NOTEREF _Ref62286203 \f \h
 \* MERGEFORMAT  2    NOTEREF _Ref62286240 \f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  3

Control Efficiency = 30%  NOTEREF _Ref63094271 \f \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  77

Rule Penetration = 100%

Rule Effectiveness = 80%

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = annual VOC emissions( summer work
weekday allocation factor

Summer work weekday allocation factor = 0.00277  NOTEREF _Ref60652619 \f
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4

Summer work weekday VOC emissions = 127.5341 ( 0.00277 = 0.3539 tons VOC
per day

APPENDIX A:  REFERENCES

 PAGE

  PAGE  9

 PAGE

  PAGE  67

A-  PAGE  4

A-  PAGE  1

 Eastern Research Group, Inc., “Emission Inventory Improvement
Program, Document Series, Volume III, Area Sources, Chapter 1,
Introduction to Area Source Emission Inventory Development (Revised
Final),” prepared for the Area Sources Committee, Emission Inventory
Improvement Program, January 2001. (Note: Because this inventory was
prepared prior to November 2005, the Commonwealth did not apply the rule
effectivness guidance found in EPA-454/P-05-001)

 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County Business
Patterns 2001, Pennsylvania, available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html. 2003"
http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html. 2003 , accessed
October 2003.

 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics,
available from   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/cew/home.htm , accessed November 2003.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Temporal Allocation Data,”
Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse, available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/temporal/"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/temporal/ , accessed November 2003.

 63 FR 48848, 1998:  Federal Register, "National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings, Final Rule,
Volume 63, Number 176, September 11, 1998.

 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “Table 2: 2002
Architectural Coating Shipments,” Current Industrial Reports, Paint
and Allied Products:  2002, available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/industry/1/ma325f02.pdf"
http://www.census.gov/industry/1/ma325f02.pdf ), accessed October 2003.

 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “County Population
Estimates Data Sets,” available from   HYPERLINK
"http://eire.census.gov/popest/estimates_dataset.php"
http://eire.census.gov/popest/estimates_dataset.php , accessed November
2003.

 Eastern Research Group, “Emission Inventory Improvement Program,
Document Series, Volume III, Area Sources,  Chapter 3, Architectural
Surface Coating,” prepared for the Area Sources Committee, Emission
Inventory Improvement Program, November 1995.

 E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., Control Measure Development Support
Analysis of Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules, prepared for the
Ozone Transport Commission, March 2001.

 Glen Heilman, Pennsylvania Association of Asphalt Material Applicators,
personal communication with Andrea Ramsey, E.H. Pechan & Associates,
Inc., February 2004.

 Eastern Research Group, Inc., “Emission Inventory Improvement
Program, Document Series, Volume III, Area Sources, Chapter 17, Asphalt
Paving (Revised Final),” prepared for the Area Sources Committee,
Emission Inventory Improvement Program, January 2001.

 Dan Szekeres, Michael Baker Corporation, personal communication with
Andy Bollman, E. H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., December 2003.

 25 Pa. Code Section 129.64, “Cutback Asphalt Paving,” available
from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.64.html"
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.64.html , accessed
February 2004.

 Dan Szekeres, Michael Baker Corporation, personal communication with
Andy Bollman, E. H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., December 2003.

 Steve Fulk, Pennsylvania Association of Asphalt Material Applicators,
personal communication with Andrea Ramsey, E. H. Pechan & Associates,
Inc., February, 2004.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories
for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone, Volume 1, General Guidance
for Stationary Sources, EPA-450/4-91-016, May 1991.

 25 Pa. Code Section 129.75, “Mobile Equipment Repair and
Refinishing.” available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.75.html"
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.75.html , accessed
January 2004.

 63 FR 48806, 1998: Federal Register, “National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings, Final
Rule,” Volume 63, Number 176, September 11, 1998.

 Lucy Adams, Radian Corporation, memorandum to SIP inventory preparers
and EPA Regions, “VOC Emissions from Bakeries,” prepared under
contract to the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Contract No. 68-D0-0125), April 24,
1992.

 Monthly statewide beer production data from Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/stats/02stats/02beerstats.htm"
http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/stats/02stats/02beerstats.htm , accessed
December 2003.

 Brewery emission factor is the sum of individual brewery process
emission factors found in Table 4-2 of Emission Factor Documentation for
AP-42 Section 9.12.1: Malt Beverages, Final Report, prepared by Midwest
Research Institute October 1996 and available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/bgdocs/b9s12-1.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/bgdocs/b9s12-1.pdf , accessed
February 2004.

 Brewery emission factor is the sum of individual brewery process
emission factors found in Table 4-3 of Emission Factor Documentation for
AP-42 Section 9.12.1: Malt Beverages, Final Report, prepared by Midwest
Research Institute October 1996 and available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/bgdocs/b9s12-1.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/bgdocs/b9s12-1.pdf , accessed
February 2004.

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climatological Data:
Pennsylvania July-December 2002 (Volume 107, Numbers 07-12), published
by National Climatic Data Center, 2003.

 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Table H40 - House
Heating Fuel Type", Census 2000: Summary File 3, [Data file], March
2003.

 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, State
Energy Data, Pennsylvania, available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/main_pa.html. 2003"
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/main_pa.html. 2003 , accessed November 2003.

 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual
Coal Report 2002, DOE/EIA-0584 (2002), 2003.

 Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., “Final Summary of the
Development and Results of a Methodology for Calculating Area Source
Emissions from Residential Fuel Combustion,” prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, September 2002.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Factor Information Retrieval Data
System (FIRE) 6.23, October 2000.

 63 FR 48819, 1998: Federal Register, “National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products, Final Rule,” Volume
63, Number 176, September 11, 1998.

 Eastern Research Group, “Emission Inventory Improvement Program,
Document Series, Volume III, Area Sources, Chapter 6, Solvent
Cleaning,” prepared for the Area Sources Committee, Emission Inventory
Improvement Program, September 1997.

 E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., “Documentation for the 2002 Nonpoint
Source National Emission Inventory for Criteria and Hazardous Air
Pollutants ,” prepared for Emission Factor and Inventory Group, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html , (forthcoming).

 Public Research Institute, “Charbroiling Activity Estimation, Draft
Report,” prepared for California Environmental Protection Agency,
California Air Resources Board, March 2003.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, “Methods for Developing a National Emission Inventory
for Commercial Cooking Processes:  Technical Memorandum,” prepared by
E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., September 2003.

 BioCycle, 2000. “2000 BioCycle National Survey – Solid Waste
Composting Trends in the U.S.”, BioCycle, November 2000.

 Eastern Research Group, ““Emission Inventory Improvement Program,
Document Series, Volume III, Area Sources, Chapter 5, Consumer and
Commercial Solvent Use,” prepared for the Area Sources Committee,
Emission Inventory Improvement Program, August 1996.

 25 Pa. Code Section 129.63, “Degreasing Operations,” available
from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.63.html"
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.63.html , accessed
January 2004.

 Federal Register, “Subpart T—National Emission Standards for
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning,” Volume 59, Number 2331, December 2,
1994.

 The Pennsylvania Dry Cleaners Association disclosed that 1.8 million
pounds of VOCs were emitted in Pennsylvania in 1990 from dry cleaning
operations.

Emission Factor = Total VOC emitted ÷ Pennsylvania Population

	= 1.8 million lbs VOC ÷ 11.88 million people (1990 census)

	= 0.15 lbs VOC/person/year

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I:
Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP-42, Fifth Edition, January 1995.

 E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., “Documentation for the Draft 1999
National Emissions Inventory (Version 3.0) for Criteria Air Pollutants
and Ammonia: Area Sources,” prepared for Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, March 2003.  Available from   HYPERLINK
"ftp://ftp.epa.gov/pub/EmisInventory/draftnei99ver3/criteria/documentati
on/area/ardoc_99nei_draftv3_0303.pdf"
ftp://ftp.epa.gov/pub/EmisInventory/draftnei99ver3/criteria/documentatio
n/area/ardoc_99nei_draftv3_0303.pdf , accessed February 2004.

 Stan Piorkowski, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Bureau of Forestry, personal communication with PJ
Disclafani, E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., December 2003.

 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Fuel Oil
and Kerosene Sales, 2002, available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/fuel_oil_and
_kerosene_sales/foks.html"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/fuel_oil_and_
kerosene_sales/foks.html , accessed November 2003.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, median sulfur content reported in
the 1999 National Emissions Inventory, available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/1999inventory.html#final3crit"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/1999inventory.html#final3crit ,
accessed October 2003.

 Dan Szekeres, Michael Baker Corporation, personal communication with
Maureen Mullen, E. H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., February 2004.

 Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, Bureau of Motor Fuel Taxes,
“Monthly Report of Gallons” for 2002, provided by Paul Sload,
December 2003.

 25 Pa. Code Section 129.60, “Bulk Gasoline Plants,” available from
 HYPERLINK
"http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.60.html"
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.60.html , accessed
February 2004.

 25 Pa. Code Section 129.61, “Small Gasoline Storage Tank Control
(Stage I Control),” available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.61.html"
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.61.html , accessed
February 2004.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “User’s Guide to MOBILE6.1
and MOBILE6.2: Mobile Source Emission Factor Model,” EPA420-R-02-028,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, October 2002.

 25 Pa. Code Section 129.82.  “Control of VOCs from Gasoline
Dispensing Facilities (Stage II),” available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.82.html"
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.82.html , accessed
February 2004.

 25 Pa. Code Section 129.59. “Bulk Gasoline Terminals,” available
from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.59.html"
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter129/s129.59.html , accessed
February 2004.

 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Petroleum
Marketing Annual 2001, available from   HYPERLINK
"http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/petroleum/048701.pdf"
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/petroleum/048701.pdf , accessed
November 2003.

 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Petroleum
Marketing Annual 2002, available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_ma
rketing_annual/pma.html"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_mar
keting_annual/pma.html , accessed November 2003.

 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration,
“Pennsylvania Natural Gas Long Summary,” available from   HYPERLINK
"http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_sum_lsum_spa_a_d.htm"
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_sum_lsum_spa_a_d.htm . accessed
November 2003.

 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration,
“Pennsylvania Natural Gas Residential Consumption,” available from
HYPERLINK "http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3010pa2M.htm"
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3010pa2M.htm , accessed November
2003.

 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration,
“Natural Gas Deliveries to Commercial Consumers in Pennsylvania,”
available from   HYPERLINK
"http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3020pa2M.htm"
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3020pa2M.htm , accessed November
2003.

 E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., “Open Burning in Residential Areas,
Emissions Inventory Development Report,” prepared for
Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union, January 31, 2004.

 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, “Summary of the
Methodology Used to Determine Volatile Organic Compounds, Nitrogen
Oxides, and Carbon Monoxide Emissions by Source Type for Calendar Year
1999 in Pennsylvania,” no date reported.

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics
Service, “Agricultural Statistics Database, Crops County Data,”
available from   HYPERLINK "http://www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/"
http://www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/ , accessed October 2003.

 California Air Resources Board, Public Meeting to Consider Approval of
California’s Portable Gasoline-Container Emissions Inventory,
September 1999.

 U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002 American Community Survey, available
from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Single/2002/ACS/PA.htm"
 http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Single/2002/ACS/PA.htm
, accessed February 2004.

 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000, available from   HYPERLINK
"http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US42&-
_box_head_nbr=GCT-H6&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-f
ormat=ST-2&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_GCTH6_US9&-_sse=on"
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US42&-_
box_head_nbr=GCT-H6&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-fo
rmat=ST-2&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_GCTH6_US9&-_sse=on , accessed February
2004.

 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., MarketPlace CD-ROM, Jan.-Mar., 2002, April
2002.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Draft NONROAD2002a, [Computer software].  Available June 16,
2003 at   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonroadmdl.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonroadmdl.htm .

 Pechan. Estimating Ammonia Emissions from Anthropogenic Sources –
Draft Report,

prepared for the US EPA, Emissions Inventory Improvement Program,
prepared by E.H.Pechan & Associates, Inc.  March 2004.

 Pechan. Technical Memorandum: MANE-VU 2002 Ammonia Emissions Inventory
for Miscellaneous Sources – Final, prepared for MARAMA by E.H. Pechan
& Associates, Inc. March, 2004.

 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County Business
Patterns 2001, Pennsylvania, available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html. 2003"
http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html. 2003 , accessed
October 2003.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
2000,” Office of Wastewater Management, available from   HYPERLINK
"http://cfpub.epa.gov/cwns/"  http://cfpub.epa.gov/cwns/ , accessed
December 2003.

 JG Press, Inc. “2000 Biocycle National Survey – Solid Waste
Composting Trends in the U.S.” BioCycle, Vol. 41 Issue 11, November
2000.

 Eastern Research Group, “Emission Inventory Improvement Program,
Document Series, Volume III, Area Sources, Chapter 18, Structure
Fires,” prepared for Area Sources Committee, Emission Inventory
Improvement Program, January 2001.

 National Fire Protection Association, Fire Loss in the United States
During 2002, September 2003.

 U.S. Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National
Fire Data Center, Fire in the United States: 1987-1996, August 1999,
available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/fius11th.pdf"
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/fius11th.pdf ,
accessed December 2003.

 Eastern Research Group, “Emission Inventory Improvement Program,
Document Series, Volume III, Area Sources, Chapter 14, Traffic
Markings” prepared for Area Sources Committee, Emission Inventory
Improvement Program, May 1997.

 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Industrial
Reports: Paint and Allied Products: 2002, MA325F(02)-1, July 2003.

 Susan Rose, Office of Planning and Policy Management, Pennsylvania
Liquor Control Board, personal communication with PJ Disclafani, E.H.
Pechan & Associates, Inc., December 2003.

 From Table 9.12.2-1 of emission factor documentation for AP-42 Section
9.12.2 Wines and Brandy, October 1995, available from   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s12-2.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/final/c9s12-2.pdf , accessed
February 2004.

 Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board figures showing Pennsylvania wine
production in 1990.

 30 Pa.B 2995, 2000: Pennsylvania Bulletin, "Surface Coating Processes,"
Volume 30, Number 24, Harrisburg, PA, June 10, 2000.

 “Short List” of AMS SCCs and Emission Factors.  July 1992.


From: "King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: 05/20/2008 06:05 PM AST

To<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Cc: Marion Hoyer; Karen Martin; Deirdre Murphy; Lydia Wegman; Bryan Manning

Subject: RE: Updated Av memo for Pb NAAQS?

Thanks !!

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:02 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: Updated Av memo for Pb NAAQS?

We have been working all day on this and just put the finishing touches

on

the final document which is going to be sent to me at the same time as

the

docket.

Warren Gillette

FAA Office of Environment and Energy

202 267 8367

             "King, Heidi R."

             <Heidi_R._King@om

             b.eop.gov>

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>              05/20/2008 05:52          Warren Gillette/AWA/FAA@FAA,

             PM<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS>

cc

Subject

                                       Updated Av memo for Pb NAAQS?

EPA/FAA,

Interagency group asks whether the revised Hoyer memo is available.  I

did

not see it posted in the docket yet.

Thanks,

heidi


[Federal Register: October 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 57179-57181]
[DOCID:fr01oc08-136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58635; File No. SR-ISE-2008-68]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Fee Changes.

September 24, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 16, 2008, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish
fees for transactions in options on 8 Premium Products.\3\ The text of
the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Premium Product [sic] is defined in the Schedule of Fees as
the products enumerated therein.

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

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    1. Purpose--The Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees
to establish fees for transactions in options on the PowerShares DB
Commodity Index Tracking Fund (``DBC''),\4\ the PowerShares DB Base
Metals Fund (``DBB''),\5\ the Vanguard[supreg] Total Stock Market ETF
(``VTI''),\6\ the PowerShares DB U.S. Dollar Bullish Fund (``UUP''),\7\
the iShares Lehman TIPS Bond Fund (``TIP''),\8\ the iShares MSCI
Pacific Ex-Japan Index Fund (``EPP''),\9\ the Ultra Real Estate
ProShares (``URE'') and the UltraShort MSCI EAFE ProShares
(``EFU'').\10\ The Exchange represents that DBC, DBB, VTI, UUP, TIP,
EPP, URE, and EFU are eligible for options trading because they
constitute ``Exchange-Traded Fund Share,'' as defined by ISE Rule
502(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The PowerShares DB Commodity Index Tracking Fund (``DBC'')
is based on the Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index--Optimum Yield
Excess Return TM. DBC is managed by DB Commodity Services
LLC. DBLCI TM and Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index
TM are trademarks of Deutsche Bank AG, London (``DB
AG''). PowerShares[supreg] is a registered service mark of
PowerShares Capital Management LLC (``PowerShares''). DBC is not
sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by DB AG, and DB AG makes no
representation regarding the advisability of investing in DBC.
Neither DB AG nor PowerShares has licensed or authorized ISE to (i)
engage in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading,
marketing, and promotion of options on DBC or (ii) to use and refer
to any of their trademarks or service marks in connection with the
listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion
of options on DBC or with making disclosures concerning options on
DBC under any applicable federal or state laws, rules or
regulations. DB AG and PowerShares do not sponsor, endorse, or
promote such activity by ISE and are not affiliated in any manner
with ISE.
    \5\ The PowerShares DB Base Metals Fund (``DBB'') is based on
the Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index--Optimum Yield Industrial
Metals Excess Return TM. DBB is managed by DB Commodity
Services LLC. DBLCI TM and Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity
Index TM are trademarks of Deutsche Bank AG, London (``DB
AG''). PowerShares[supreg] is a registered service mark of
PowerShares Capital Management LLC (``PowerShares''). DBB is not
sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by DB AG, and DB AG makes no
representation regarding the advisability of investing in DBB.
Neither DB AG nor PowerShares has licensed or authorized ISE to (i)
engage in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading,
marketing, and promotion of options on DBB or (ii) to use and refer
to any of their trademarks or service marks in connection with the
listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion
of options on DBB or with making disclosures concerning options on
DBB under any applicable federal or state laws, rules or
regulations. DB AG and PowerShares do not sponsor, endorse, or
promote such activity by ISE and are not affiliated in any manner
with ISE.
    \6\ Vanguard, Vanguard ETFs and Vanguard ETF are trademarks of
The Vanguard Group, Inc. (``Vanguard''). All other marks are the
exclusive property of their respective owners. The Vanguard[supreg]
Total Stock Market ETF (``VTI'') tracks the Morgan Stanley Capital
International[supreg] (MSCI[supreg]) U.S. Broad Market Index. MSCI
does not sponsor, endorse, or promote VTI and makes no
representation regarding the advisability of investing in VTI.
Vanguard has not licensed or authorized ISE to (i) engage in the
creation, listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and
promotion of options on VTI or (ii) to use and refer to any of their
trademarks or service marks in connection with the listing,
provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of
options on VTI or with making disclosures concerning options on VTI
under any applicable federal or state laws, rules or regulations.
Vanguard does not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE,
and is not affiliated in any manner with ISE.
    \7\ The PowerShares DB U.S. Dollar Bullish Fund (``UUP'') is
based on the Deutsche Bank Long U.S. Dollar Index (USDX[supreg])
Futures Index TM (``DB Long USD Futures Index''). The
sponsor of the DB Long USD Futures Index is Deutsche Bank AG, London
(``DB AG''). UUP is managed by DB Commodity Services LLC. U.S.
Dollar Index[supreg] and USDX[supreg] are registered service marks
of IntercontinentalExchange, Inc. PowerShares[supreg] is a
registered service mark of PowerShares Capital Management LLC
(``PowerShares''). UUP is not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted
by DB AG, and DB AG makes no representation regarding the
advisability of investing in UUP. Neither DB AG nor PowerShares has
licensed or authorized ISE to (i) engage in the creation, listing,
provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of
options on UUP or (ii) to use and refer to any of their trademarks
or service marks in connection with the listing, provision of a
market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on UUP or
with making disclosures concerning options on UUP under any
applicable federal or state laws, rules or regulations. DB AG and
PowerShares do not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE
and are not affiliated in any manner with ISE.
    \8\ iShares[supreg] is a registered trademark of Barclays Global
Investors, N.A. (``BGI''), a majority owned subsidiary of Barclays
Bank PLC. ``Lehman Brothers U.S. Treasury TIPS Index'' is a
trademark of Lehman Brothers and has been licensed for use for
certain purposes by BGI. All other trademarks and service marks are
the property of their respective owners. iShares Lehman TIPS Bond
Fund (``TIP'') is not sponsored, endorsed, issued, sold or promoted
by Lehman. BGI and Lehman have not licensed or authorized ISE to (i)
engage in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading,
marketing, and promotion of options on TIP or (ii) to use and refer
to any of their trademarks or service marks in connection with the
listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion
of options on TIP or with making disclosures concerning options on
TIP under any applicable federal or state laws, rules or
regulations. BGI and Lehman do not sponsor, endorse, or promote such
activity by ISE, and are not affiliated in any manner with ISE.
    \9\ iShares[supreg] is a registered trademark of Barclays Global
Investors, N.A. (``BGI''), a majority owned subsidiary of Barclays
Bank PLC. ``MSCI Pacific Ex-Japan Index'' is a service mark of
Morgan Stanley Capital International (``MSCI'') and has been
licensed for use for certain purposes by BGI. All other trademarks
and service marks are the property of their respective owners.
iShares MSCI Pacific Ex-Japan Index Fund (``EPP'') is not sponsored,
endorsed, issued, sold or promoted by MSCI. BGI and MSCI have not
licensed or authorized ISE to (i) engage in the creation, listing,
provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of
options on EPP or (ii) to use and refer to any of their trademarks
or service marks in connection with the listing, provision of a
market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on EPP or
with making disclosures concerning options on EPP under any
applicable federal or state laws, rules or regulations. BGI and MSCI
do not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE, and are
not affiliated in any manner with ISE.
    \10\ ``Dow Jones'' and ``Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate
SM'' are service marks of Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
(``Dow Jones'') and have been licensed for use for certain purposes
by ProShares. MSCI, Morgan Stanley Capital International and EAFE
are service marks of MSCI and have been licensed for use for certain
purposes by ProShares. All other trademarks and service marks are
the property of their respective owners. The Ultra Real Estate
ProShares (``URE'') and the UltraShort MSCI EAFE ProShares (``EFU'')
are not sponsored, endorsed, issued, sold or promoted by Dow Jones
or MSCI. Dow Jones and MSCI have not licensed or authorized ISE to
(i) engage in the creation, listing, provision of a market for
trading, marketing, and promotion of options on URE and EFU or (ii)
to use and refer to any of their trademarks or service marks in
connection with the listing, provision of a market for trading,
marketing, and promotion of options on URE and EFU or with making
disclosures concerning options on URE and EFU under any applicable
federal or state laws, rules or regulations. Dow Jones and MSCI do
not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE and is not
affiliated in any manner with ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the applicable fees covered by this filing are identical to
fees charged by the Exchange for all other Premium Products.
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to adopt an execution fee for
all transactions in options on DBC, DBB, VTI, UUP, TIP, EPP, URE, and
EFU.\11\ The amount of the execution fee for products covered by this
filing shall be $0.18 per contract for all Public Customer Orders \12\
and Firm Proprietary orders. The amount of the execution fee for all
ISE Market Maker transactions shall be equal to the execution fee
currently charged by the Exchange for ISE Market Maker

transactions in equity options.\13\ Finally, the amount of the
execution fee for all non-ISE Market Maker transactions shall be $0.45
per contract.\14\ Further, since options on DBC, DBB, VTI, UUP, TIP,
EPP, URE, and EFU are multiply-listed, the Exchange's Payment for Order
Flow fee shall apply to all these products. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change will further the Exchange's goal of introducing
new products to the marketplace that are competitively priced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ These fees will be charged only to Exchange members. Under
a pilot program that is set to expire on July 31, 2009, these fees
will also be charged to Linkage Principal Orders (``Linkage P
Orders'') and Linkage Principal Acting as Agent Orders (``Linkage P/
A Orders''). The amount of the execution fee charged by the Exchange
for Linkage P Orders and Linkage P/A Orders is $0.24 per contract
side and $0.15 per contract side, respectively. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58143 (July 11, 2008), 73 FR 41388 (July
18, 2008) (SR-ISE-2008-52)
    \12\ Public Customer Order is defined in Exchange Rule
100(a)(39) as an order for the account of a Public Customer. Public
Customer is defined in Exchange Rule 100(a)(38) as a person or
entity that is not a broker or dealer in securities.
    \13\ The Exchange applies a sliding scale, between $0.01 and
$0.18 per contract side, based on the number of contracts an ISE
market maker trades in a month.
    \14\ The amount of the execution fee for non-ISE Market Maker
transactions executed in the Exchange's Facilitation and
Solicitation Mechanisms is $0.19 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Basis--The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\15\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\16\ in particular, in
that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \18\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2008-68 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-68. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-
2008-68 and should be submitted on or before October 22, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-22967 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6013-6014]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02779]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-807-000]

Pinal Central Energy Center, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
Pinal Central Energy Center, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 26, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be

listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an
eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling
link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected]. or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 6, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02779 Filed 2-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 From:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> To:
Byron Bunker/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Charles Moulis/AA/USEPA/US@EPA
 Cc:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Angela Cullen/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cleophas Jackson/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date:
05/24/2011 09:54 AM
 Subject:
Re: Fw: 1036.530(b) Comments on CO2 Adjustment Factor for fuel carbon-specific net energy content

Byron and Chuck, as discussed last week, please see the email below from Bill Martin on the CO2 adjustment factor.

From:        Brian C Mormino/Corp/Cummins
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:        Robert A Jorgensen/Corp/Cummins@Cummins, Steve J Charlton/Ind/Cummins@Cummins, Jackie M Yeager/Ind/Cummins@Cummins, Jon A Dickson/Auto/Cummins@Cummins, Bill T Martin/Ind/Cummins@Cummins, <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>L K Hwang/Ind/Cummins
Date:        04/29/2011 12:55 PM
Subject:        Fw: 1036.530(b) Comments on CO2 Adjustment Factor for fuel carbon-specific net energy content

Byron and Chuck, please see the notes and recommendations below from Bill Martin.  As these are detailed technical comments, we wanted to lay this out fully in an email.  Please review and let me know if you would like to setup a call to discuss,

BCM

---------------------------------------------------------
Brian C. Mormino
Director -- Energy Policy and Emissions Compliance
Cummins Inc. - Mail Code: 60203
500 Jackson Street
Columbus, IN 47201
812-377-0512 (p)
812-377-0085 (f)
202-669-3597 (c)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

----- Forwarded by Brian C Mormino/Corp/Cummins on 04/28/2011 01:50 PM -----

From:        Bill T Martin/Ind/Cummins
To:        Brian C Mormino/Corp/Cummins@Cummins
Date:        04/28/2011 01:40 PM
Subject:        1036.530(b) Comments on CO2 Adjustment Factor for fuel carbon-specific net energy content

Brian,

Please forward this to Byron Bunker, Chuck Moulis and other appropriate EPA people.

Dear Mr. Bunker and Mr. Moulis:

Several technical issues have been raised within Cummins with the NPRM language on the CO2 adjustment factor.

The issues include the following:
   1.	rounding,
   2.	precision of reference values,
   3.	variation of fuel analysis,
   4.	units symbols, and
   5.	carbon weight fraction analysis method.

The concerns are detailed below.  Please consider these comments as you finalize the language.  If you have any question, please contact me.

Beside these comments, Cummins also supports the comments made in the Emissions Measurement and Testing Committee meeting on March 31, 2011 recommending that a tolerance be added around the reference values where it would be permissible to not correct the measured results.  As discussed at this meeting, the intent of this allowance was to allow test facilities to avoid the additional expense of new data systems and software to track these fuel properties and apply the correction under situations where there is little variation in the carbon-specific net energy content.  Effectively these tolerances provide an option to control this source of CO2 variation by controlling the fuel properties instead of correcting for them.  The magnitude of these tolerances need to be set wider than the variation in the carbon-specific net energy content to avoid triggering an adjustment due only to variation in the fuel properties.  See the discussion below on variation of fuel analysis.

1.  Rounding
1036.530(b) reads:
(b) Adjust CO2 emission rates calculated under paragraph (a) of this section for test fuel properties as specified in this paragraph (b) to obtain the official emission results. Note that the purpose of this adjustment is to make official emission results independent of small differences in test fuels within a fuel type.
(1) ...Calculate the test fuel's carbon-specific net energy content (BTU/lbC) by dividing the net energy content by the carbon fraction and rounding to the nearest BTU/lbC.
1036.530(b)(2) reads:
(2) Calculate the adjustment factor for carbon-specific net energy content by dividing the carbon-specific net energy content of your test fuel by the reference level in the following table and rounding to five decimal places.
(3) Your official emission result equals your calculated brake-specific emission rate multiplied by the adjustment factor specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. ...

Rounding intermediate results is generally not a good practice.  Unless the standard setting part requires rounding of intermediate results, 1065.20(e) calls for rounding only the final result (which in this case is the adjusted BSCO2 value) just before comparing it to the applicable standard.  In this case, there appears to be no good reason to round intermediate results.  Specifications like these to rounding intermediate results require special processes in data analysis programs.  Cummins recommends that these paragraphs be amended by deleting the rounding phrases "and rounding to the nearest BTU/lbC" and "and rounding to five decimal places".

2. Precision of Reference Values
All the reference values appear to be rounded to three significant digits with a resolution of 1 part out of 212 to 285 (0.47 to 0.35 %).  1036.530(b) states the intent of this adjustment factor - "Note that the purpose of this adjustment is to make official emission results independent of small differences in test fuels within a fuel type.".  Based on this, the intent is to reduce variation without introducing a bias relative to the data used to set the CO2 standards.  Since this resolution is a significant fraction of the total variation in BSCO2 that it is designed to improve, the resolution of these reference values should be increased so that they do not introduce a bias that is significant with respect to this variation.   If the final selected reference value would cause a shift in the mean of the data set used to set the CO2 standard, then the standards would need shifted accordingly.  An analysis from the supplier of the diesel certification fuel used at Cummins Technical Center gives a carbon-specific net energy content of 21,266 Btu/lb.  This is 0.31% above the reference value of 21,200.  The resulting adjustment factor is 1.00311.  This suggests that the BSCO2 data that Cummins submitted for diesel engines would need an upward adjustment of 0.311% to be comparable to the results we would get using this adjustment factor.  Cummins recommends that the reference values be recalculated based on the average of the fuels used for the CO2 test results used to set the standards and express the final value with at least one more significant figure.

3. Variation of Fuel Analysis
The variation of the fuel analysis needs to be considered relative to the total observed variation in BSCO2.  This topic was discussed at  the Emissions Measurement and Testing Committee meeting on March 31, 2011.  At that meeting Cummins raised concern over whether inclusion of the CO2 adjustment factor might increase the total observed variation in BSCO2 due to variation in the fuel analysis.  Chuck Moulis, EPA, indicated he reviewed three analysis of their diesel cert fuel and it showed very little variation.  He estimates 2-3% variation is possible.  He estimated larger variation for gaseous fuels.  He agreed to look at adding a range over which no correction is required.  In setting an appropriate no-adjust tolerance, the variation in the carbon-specific net energy content needs analyzed.  The following is  an analysis for diesel fuel.

1036.530(b)(1) references ASTM D240-09 for measuring the net energy content for liquid fuels.  This ASTM standard gives the reproducibility in section 12.1.2  to be 0.40 MJ/kg (172 Btu/lb).  This ASTM standard defines this value as follows:
"The difference between two single and independent results, obtained by different operators working in different laboratories on identical test material, would in the long run, in normal and correct operation of the test method, exceed the values shown in the following table only in one case in twenty."
Effectively this value of 0.40 MJ/kg represents two standard deviations of the distribution of the differences of independent observations.  The variance in the differences is two times the variance in the individual observations.  Expressing the reproducibility in terms of  95% of variation in the net energy content requires dividing by the square root of two, resulting in a reproducibility estimate based on individual observations of the net energy content of 0.28 MJ/kg (122 Btu/lb).   This value results in a relative reproducibility of 0.66 % of the nominal net energy content of 18,400 Btu/lb for diesel fuel.

ASTM D5291-10 is used for determining carbon weight fraction.  This ASTM standard gives the reproducibility of carbon fraction in section 13.1.1 as a formula based on the mean value.  This ASTM standard does not define this value.  It references an interlaboratory study documented in ASTM Research Report, RR:D02-1289, which was not available on-line.  Assuming this interlaboratory study followed ASTM E691-09, then the meaning of reproducibility is the same as ASTM D240-09.  At the nominal carbon weight fraction of 87.0 % for diesel fuel, this formula results in an estimated reproducibility of 2.4 % or a relative reproducibility of 2.8% of the carbon weight fraction value.  Dividing by the square root of two, yields the reproducibility based on individual observations of carbon weight fraction of 1.7 % or a relative reproducibility of 2.0% of the carbon weight fraction.

These two properties are determined by independent methods, so the combined reproducibility of the carbon-specific net energy content can be estimated as the root-sum-square (RSS) of the relative reproducibility of the components.  The combined relative reproducibility is 2.1 % of the carbon-specific net energy content.  This analysis indicates that the dominate source of variation is the measurement of carbon weight fraction.  This variation is comparable to the total observed variation in BSCO2 seen on diesel engines.  This variation analysis indicates that the total variation in adjusted BSCO2 across all labs is at risk of being higher than the unadjusted BSCO2 due to variation in the measurement of the carbon-specific net energy content. Based on this simple analysis, Cummins recommends that the CO2 no-adjust tolerance for liquid fuels be +/- 2.1 % of the reference value.  If the reference values are not recalculated as described above, then the no-adjust tolerance for liquid fuels should be increased to +/- 2.5 %.  Allowing an optional no-adjust tolerance based on the expected variation in the carbon-specific net energy content will give test facilities the flexibility to choose whether to include this adjustment depending on whether the adjustment factor improves their variation in BSCO2.  To avoid biasing the results due to selectively choosing this option based on the results of the fuel analysis, labs should be required to set their no-adjust tolerances before the fuel analysis is performed.  They should be allowed to select any two sided (+/-) no-adjust tolerance from zero up to the maximum allowed.   Allowing the test facility to select a lower no-adjust tolerance gives them the flexibility to optimize the no-adjust tolerance for minimum BSCO2 variation given the variation in their fuel properties and BSCO2.

4. Units Symbols
Per NIST SP 811, which is reference by 1065, the proper units symbol for the British Thermal Unit is Btu.  Cummins recommends that all occurrences of "BTU" be change to "Btu".

NIST SP 811 lists six different energy units conversions associated with this unit symbol varying from 1.05435 to 1.05967 E+03 Joules, a range of 0.5%.  To eliminate this ambiguity, either the specific Btu unit needs to be specified in the CFR language or the reference values need to be converted to a more well defined energy unit like Joule.  Since fuel analysis reports typically give net energy content in units of Btu, the specific Btu to be used must be based on the unit used to by the labs analyzing fuel samples to avoid any bias due to selecting the wrong Btu unit.   1036.530(b)(1) cites ASTM D240-09 for the analysis of liquid fuels. Section 11 of ASTM D240-09 recommends reporting results in MJ/kg and notes conversion factors to Btu/lb.  Based on section 3.1.3, which gives a 1 Btu = 1055.06 J, it is clear that this standard is using the International Table Btu.  Per NIST SP 811 (and ASTM D3588-98), the exact conversion factor for the International Table Btu is 1.055 055 852 62 kJ. Cummins recommends that the Btu unit symbol be retained and that the following sentence be added to clarify the meaning of this unit.  "For purposes of this section, the unit symbol Btu refers to the International Table Btu and its exact conversion factor is 1.055 055 852 62 kJ."

NIST SP 811, section 7.5 (attached below) strongly discourages the mixing of information with units and units symbols.  The unit symbol used in this NPRM "BTU/lbC" does just that.  The quantity description (carbon-specific net energy content) makes it clear that the mass unit in the denominator (lb) is associated with the mass of carbon.  This is a style issue.  Cummins recommends that the unit symbol "lb" be used instead of "lbC" to conform more closely with NIST SP 811.

5. Reference for determining carbon weight fraction
1036.530(b)(1) references ASTM D240-09 for determining both the net energy content and the carbon weight fraction for liquid fuels.  This  ASTM standard only addresses the energy content.  A different standard needs to be sited for carbon weight fraction for liquid fuels or allow it to be determined using good engineering judgment like gaseous fuels.  Consider ASTM D5291-10 for diesel fuels.  Note that ASTM D5291-10 does not cover more volatile fuels like gasoline, see section 1.4.

Bill Martin
Director, Emissions Development
Mail Code 50180
Cummins Technical Center
Cummins, Inc.
Box 3005
Columbus, IN  47202-3005
812-377-7411
812-377-7050 (fax)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
From NIST Special Publication 811, 2008 Edition, Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI)