                     Index to Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0686

             Redesignation of the Phoenix-Mesa Area to Attainment
                      For the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

CATEGORY I.  Proposed Rule

1. "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Arizona; Redesignation of Phoenix-Mesa to Attainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard;" signed March 14, 2014. (prepublication version).

2. [Reserved for published version of the proposed rule.]

CATEGORY II.  Official Public Comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

[Reserved]

CATEGORY III.  Other Documents

1. "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992

2. "Memorandum of Agreement among the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the Arizona Department of Transportation and Maricopa County, By and Through the Maricopa County Environmental Quality and Community Services Agency and the Maricopa Association of Governments," November 9, 1992

3. "Early Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas," EPA guidance memorandum, August 13, 1993

4. "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992," Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993.

5. Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 439 (6[th] Cir. 2001)

6. Sierra Club v. Whitman 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),

7. Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7[th] Cir. 2004)

8. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. V. EPA, 472 F.3d.882 (DC Cir. 2006), December 22, 2006

9. April 2007 "Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze" US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

10. Eight-Hour Ozone Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area, June 2007

11. Eight-Hour Ozone Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area, Appendices, Volume One, June 2007

12. Eight-Hour Ozone Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area, Appendices, Volume Two, June 2007

13. September 2008 Technical System Audit Report for Maricopa County Air Quality Department

14. March 23, 2009 letter plus three enclosures from Patrick Cunningham, Acting Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Re: Submittal of the 8-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA

15. MAG Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area, February 2009 (included with enclosure 3 of March 23, 2009 submittal)

16. MAG Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area, Appendices Volume 1, February 2009 (included with enclosure 3 of March 23, 2009 submittal)

17. MAG Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area, Appendices Volume 2, February 2009 (included with enclosure 3 of March 23, 2009 submittal)

18. MAG Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area, Appendices Volume 3, February 2009 (included with enclosure 3 of March 23, 2009 submittal)

19. EPA letter to Maricopa County AQCD, concerning annual monitoring network review for 2010, dated October 25, 2010.

20. EPA letter to PCAQCD concerning annual monitoring network review for 2010, dated November 1, 2010

21. EPA letter to ADEQ concerning annual monitoring network review for 2010, dated December 10, 2010

22. Pinal 2010 data certification, dated April 29, 2011

23. ADEQ 2010 data certification, dated May 2, 2011

24. Maricopa 2010 data certification, dated July 15, 2011

25. Maricopa County Design Value Report, 2001  -  2011, September 14, 2011

26. EPA letter PCAQCD concerning annual monitoring network review for 2011, dated November 1, 2011

27. EPA letter to ADEQ concerning annual monitoring network review for 2011, dated December 1, 2011

28. Letter from Ben Davis, Air Monitoring Manager, MCAQD, to Michael Flagg, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated January 31, 2012

29. Maricopa 2011 data certification, dated April 27, 2012

30. Pinal 2011 data certification, dated May 1, 2012

31. ADEQ 2011 data certification, dated September 21, 2012

32. Memorandum from Ryan Templeton, Environmental Engineer Specialist, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Eric Massey, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, entitled "Maricopa County Traffic Counts," dated October 29, 2012

33. January 2013:  Technical System Audit, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Ambient Air Monitoring Program, April 9  -  April 13, 2012; US EPA Region 9

34. January 18, 2013, Letter from Deborah Jordan, EPA to Eric Massey, ADEQ, transmitting January 2013 Technical System Audit Report

35. EPA letter to ADEQ concerning annual monitoring network review for 2012, dated March 1, 2013

36. EPA letter PCAQCD concerning annual monitoring network review for 2012, dated March 27, 2013

37. EPA letter to MCAQCD, concerning annual monitoring network review for 2012, dated April 12, 2013

38. Pinal 2012 data certification, dated April 26, 2013

39. ADEQ 2012 data certification, dated May 16, 2013

40. June 2013: Technical System Audit, Pinal County Air Quality Control District Ambient Monitoring Program, April 9  -  April 13, 2012: US EPA Region 9

41. "Analysis of the Interim Year 2019 as a Supplement to the 2009 MAG Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area," June 17, 2013

42. Maricopa 2012 data certification, dated June 28, 2013

43. Phoenix Design Value Report for 2012, dated October 28, 2013

44. Phoenix Design Value Report for 2011, dated October 30, 2013

45. Salt River Design Value Report 2007  -  2013, dated October 30, 2013

46. "Adequacy Documentation for Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets in February 2009 MAG Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area," Memorandum to file from Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region 9, October 31, 2013

47. AQS Preliminary Design Value Report for 2013 dated November 6, 2013,

48. November 26, 2013 memorandum from Rynda Kay, Air Quality Analysis Office, US EPA Region 9, entitled, "Meteorological Trend Analysis for Phoenix-Mesa Area"

49. January 8, 2014 memo to file from Colleen McKaughan, Associate Director, Air Division, US EPA Region 9, entitled "Record of Conference Call with the Tohono O'odham Nation (TON) in advance of Public Comment Period."

50. January 13, 2014 memo to file from Colleen McKaughan, Associate Director, Air Division, US EPA Region 9, entitled "Record of Conference Call with the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (Fort McDowell), Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), and Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) in advance of Public Comment Period."

51. AQS Preliminary Design Value Report for 2013, dated March 6, 2014

52. Arizona Administrative Code section R9-3-101

53. Arizona Administrative Code section R9-3-302

54. Maricopa County Rule 21.0

CATEGORY IV.  Federal Register Notices

1. 36 FR 8186; April 30, 1971
2. 43 FR 8962; March 1978
3. 44 FR 8202; February 8, 1979
4. 44 FR 16388; March 19, 1979
5. 56 FR 56694; November 6, 1991
6. 57 FR 13498; April 16, 1992
7. 57 FR 18070; April 28, 1992
8. 58 FR 62188; November 24, 1993
9. 60 FR 12459; March 7, 1995
10. 60 FR 62748; December 7, 1995
11. 61 FR 20458; May 7, 1996
12. 61 FR 53174; October 10, 1996
13. 62 FR 24816 ; May 7, 1997
14. 62 FR 38856; July 18, 1997
15. 62 FR 60001; November 6, 1997
16. 64 FR 19916; April 23, 1999
17. 65 FR 37879; June 19, 2000
18. 66 FR 53094; October 19, 2001
19. 68 FR 25418; May 12, 2003
20. 69 FR 2912; January 22, 2003
21. 69 FR 10161; March 4, 2004
22. 69 FR 23858; April 30, 2004
23. 69 FR 38958; June 29, 2004
24. 70 FR 7038; February 10, 2005
25. 70 FR 11553; March 9, 2005
26. 70 FR 13425; March 21, 2005
27. 70 FR 30370; May 26, 2005
28. 70 FR 34362; June 14, 2005
29. 72 FR 6986; February 14, 2007
30. 72 FR 26718; May 11, 2007
31. 73 FR 16436; March 27, 2008
32. 75 FR 17254; April 5, 2010
33. 77 FR 21690; April 11, 2012
34. 77 FR 28424; May 14, 2012
35. 77 FR 30088; May 21, 2012,
36. 77 FR 35285; June 13, 2012.
37. 77 FR 66398; November 5, 2012
38. 78 FR 30209; May 22, 2013
39. 78 FR 52485; August 23, 2013

CATEGORY V.  FINAL RULE

[Reserved]


[Federal Register: October 26, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 61798]
[DOCID:fr26oc05-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-33-000]

Mojave Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas
Tariff

October 20, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 17, 2005, Mojave Pipeline Company
(Mojave) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective
November 17, 2005:

Second Revised Sheet No. 218
Third Revised Sheet No. 219
Second Revised Sheet No. 219A

    Mojave states that the tariff sheets extend the nomination deadline
by fifteen minutes.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5932 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES June 20, 2006 Memorandum SUBJECT: Propiconazole: Amendment to the Propiconazole Reregistrat ion Eligibility Decision ( RED) Document for Children's Postapplicat ion Exposure Treated Structures. PC Code 122101. Reregistrat ion Case# 3125. DP Barcode 330159.

FROM: Tim Leighton, Environmental Scient ist Cassi Walls, Ph. D., Chemist Ant imicrobia ls Division TO: Mark Hartman, Branch Chief, RMBII Ant imicrobia ls Division And Christ ina Scheltema, Chemical Review Manager Special Review and Reregistrat ion Division At tached is a screening level review of the children's exposure to propiconazole treated wood ( i. e., dimensional lumber).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The draft propiconazole Reregistrat ion Eligibility Decision ( RED) document did not include an assessment of the propiconazole treatment of dimensional lumber because at the t ime no surface residue data were available to assess the exposure. During the comment period the registrants clarified that although propiconazole is not current ly being marketed, they intended to keep it on the label. Therefore, this memorandum out lines a screening level assessment for the potent ial r isks to children playing on propiconazole treated structures, if propiconazole were to be used to treat dimensional lumber in the future. It is also recommended that the labels clarify the intended uses by including the Amer ican Wood Preservers' Associat ion ( AWPA) standard codes for wood classificat ion.

A determinist ic exposure assessment was developed using the scenarios and modified equat ions from the probabilist ic Stochast ic Human Exposure and Dose Simulat ion ( SHEDS) model developed to assess children's exposure to CCA treated structures ( USEPA 2005a). Although 2 the SHEDS model was not developed to provide a determinist ic assessment , EPA believes that a high end screening level est imate is appropr iate to determine " reasonable certainty o f no harm" for a reregistrat ion eligibility decision. The result s of the determinist ic screening level assessment indicate that the short term dermal, incidental oral, and aggregate MOEs for propiconazole are 450, 5300, and 410, respect ively. The intermediate term dermal, incidental oral, and aggregate MOEs are 150, 1800, and 140, respect ively. This r isk assessment , based on high end screening level assumpt ions, indicates no r isks o f concern. Confirmatory data for the surface residues are needed to verify that the wood surface concentration of propiconazole is lower then that assumed in this screening level assessment .

INTRODUCTION At this t ime there are no chemical specific surface wipe residue data available to assess the dermal and incidental exposure for children playing on treated structures. Up unt il this point in t ime, wood surface residue data have not been est imated without a wood wipe study. EPA has decided to provide a screening level assessment for a reregistrat ion decision using a conservat ive sur face residue value of 1 µ g/ cm2 and callin confirmatory data. The 1 µ g/ cm2 value accounts for the skin reduction factor, or " transfer efficiency" from a cloth wipe ( i. e., cloth wipe surface residues are higher than that available to the skin). This high end residue value is higher than the maximum residue seen for chromium and non chromium based wood preservat ives.

A determinist ic screening level assessment has been developed by EPA to assess children's exposure using the 1 µ g/ cm2 wood residue value along with exposure algor ithms and parameters from the probabilist ic Stochast ic Human Exposure and Dose Simulat ion ( SHEDS) model ( USEPA 2005a). SHEDS was developed by EPA to assess exposure to children contact ing CCA treated structures ( i. e., decks and play sets). The SHEDS report along with EPA's response to the Science Advisory Panel's ( SAP) review comment s is located at ht tp:// www. epa. gov/ heasd/ sheds/ cca_ treated. htm.

The SHEDS model includes the following exposure scenarios for children playing on treated structures:

  Dermal exposure to wood residues;   Incidental ingest ion from hand to mouth act ivit ies ( wood residues);   Incidental ingest ion from soil; and   Dermal exposure to soil. 3 Based on the result s of the CCA assessment and preliminary calculat ions for propiconazole, direct contact with the treated wood exhibit s the highest potent ial for exposure. The leaching of wood preservat ive into the so il and subsequent exposure is less then that attributed to direct contact with the treated wood itself. Therefore, for screening level assessment purposes, only the contact with the treated wood is quant ified. I f the r isks are not of concern for contacting the treated wood direct ly, then the so il exposure and aggregate of the so il exposure with the direct wood exposure is expected to be of minimal addit ional contribut ion.

Toxicological Endpoints of Concern Table1 summar izes the toxicological endpoint s for propiconazole ( USEPA 2003 and 2005b). Table 1. Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Propiconazole for Use in Human Risk Assessments Exposure Scenar io Dose Used in Risk Assessment , UF Special FQPA SF and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Shor t Term ( 1 30 days) Incidental Or al NOAEL= 30 mg ai / kg Residential MOE = 100 Acute Neurotoxici ty Study  Rats. Cl inical toxicity: piloerect ion, diarrhea, tip toe at 100 mg/ kg Intermediate Term ( 1  6 months) Incidental Or al NOAEL= 10 mg ai / kg/ day Residential MOE = 100 24 Month Oncogenici ty Study  Mice. Liver toxicity ( increased l iver weight in males and increase in l iver lesions ( masses/ raised areas/ swellings/ nodular areas mainly)

Shor t Term ( 1  30 days) Dermal ( General Pop. including infants and children) Oral NOAEL= 30 mg ai / kg ( Dermal absorption rate = 40%) Residential MOE = 100 Acute Neurotoxici ty Study  Rats. Cl inical toxicity: piloerect ion, diarrhea, tip toe at 100 mg/ kg Intermediate Term ( 1  6 months) and Long Term Dermal (> 6 months) Oral NOAEL= 10 mg ai / kg/ day ( Dermal absorption rate = 40%) Residential MOE = 100 24 Month Oncogenici ty Study  Mice. Liver toxicity ( increased l iver weight in males and increase in l iver lesions ( masses/ raised areas/ swellings/ nodular areas mainly)

Cancer Group C, possible human carcinogen 4 UF = uncer tainty factor , FQPA SF = special FQPA safety factor , NOAEL = no observed adver se effect level , LOAEL = lowest observed adver se effect level , PAD = populat ion adjusted dose ( a = acute, c = chronic), RfD = reference dose, MOE = margin of exposure, LOC = Level of concern, NA = Not Applicable.

Dermal Exposure I f propiconazole were to be so ld in the future to treat dimensional lumber, potent ial dermal exposure to children can result from playing on propiconazole treated structures such as decks and/ or play sets. The dermal toxicological endpoints o f concern for propiconazole are non cancer. Therefore, the amort izat ion o f exposure over t ime that is provided in the SHEDS model for CCA is not appropriate for propiconazole. The frequency o f exposure is believed to be best represented by the short term durat ion ( i. e., 1 to 30 days o f cont inuous exposure). However, the intermediate term durat ion is also presented to provide r isk est imates for that port ion o f the populat ion that plays cont inuously on treated structures up to 6 months at a t ime ( Note: For propiconazole, the intermediate and long term endpoints are ident ical).

The potent ial daily dose ( PDD) from the dermal route of exposure is est imated using the following modified equat ion from the SHEDS report ( i. e., SHEDS Appendix 2 page A2 5):

PDD = SR x SA x DA x CF1 BW where: PDD = Potent ial daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day) ; SR = Wood surface residue adjusted for dermal transfer or " transfer efficiency" ( EPA high end assumpt ion o f 1 µ g/ cm2) ; SA = Sur face area of unclothed body areas assuming 100% contacts the treated area ( 2,530 cm2 warm weather); DA = Dermal absorpt ion ( 40%); CF1 = Unit conversion factor ( 0.001 mg/ µ g); and BW = Body weight ( 15 kg) ( USEPA, 2000 and 2001).

Note: The wood surface residue of 1 µ g/ cm2 represents a bounding est imate o f the steady state amount of residue on a hand wiping the surface of treated wood. A confirmatory study to determine the surface residues o f propiconazole over t ime is needed to ver ify the bounding est imate and refine the r isk assessment .

The result s of dermal exposure assessment indicate an absorbed dose of 0.0675 mg/ kg/ day. The short and intermediate term margin of exposures ( MOEs) are 450 and 150, respect ively, with a target MOE of 5 100. Therefore, the screening level assessment indicates no r isk o f concern for the dermal route of exposure.

Incidental Oral Exposure I f propiconazole were to be so ld to treat dimensional lumber, potent ial oral exposure to children can result from hand to mouth act ivit ies while playing on propiconazole treated structures such as decks and/ or play sets. The incidental oral toxicological endpoints o f concern for propiconazole are non cancer. Therefore, the amort izat ion of exposure over t ime that is provided in the SHEDS model for CCA is not appropriate for propiconazole. The frequency o f exposure is believed to be best represented by the short term durat ion ( i. e., 1 to 30 days o f cont inuous exposure). However, the intermediate term durat ion is also presented to provide r isk est imates for that port ion o f the populat ion that plays cont inuously on treated structures up to 6 months at a t ime.

The potent ial daily dose ( PDD) from the dermal route of exposure is est imated using the following modified equat ion from the SHEDS report ( i. e., SHEDS Appendix 2 page A2 8):

PDD = SR x SA x FQ x ET x SE x CF1 BW where: PDD = Potent ial daily dose ( mg/ kg/ day) ; SR = Wood surface residue adjusted for dermal transfer or " transfer efficiency" ( EPA high end assumpt ion o f 1 µ g/ cm2) ; SA = Sur face area of the hands that contact both the treated area, and the individuals mouth ( 20 cm2 / event) ( USEPA, 2000 and 2001); FQ = Frequency o f hand to mouth events ( mean 8.45 events/ hr) ( Table 10, page 62, USEPA 2005a); SE = Saliva extract ion efficiency ( 50% unit less fract ion) ( USEPA, 2000 and 2001); ET = Exposure Time ( mean 1 hr/ day) ( Table 49 page 165 USEPA 2005a); CF1 = Unit conversion factor ( 0.001 mg/ µ g); and BW = Body weight ( 15 kg) ( USEPA, 2000 and 2001).

Note: The wood surface residue of 1 µ g/ cm2 represents a bounding est imate o f the steady state amount of residue on a hand wiping the surface of treated wood. A confirmatory study to determine the surface residues o f propiconazole over t ime is needed to ver ify the bounding est imate and refine the r isk assessment . 6 The result s of incidental oral exposure result ing from hand tomouth act ivity indicate a dose of 0.0437 mg/ kg/ day. The short and intermediate term MOEs are 5,300 and 1,800, respect ively, with a target MOE of 100. Therefore, the screening level assessment indicates no risk of concern for the oral route of exposure.

Aggregate Exposure The dermal and oral endpoints used to assess the potent ial exposures are from the same studies, and therefore, same toxicological effects. The dermal and oral exposures may occur simultaneously, and therefore, are aggregated to determine the total MOE. Table 2 presents the aggregate r isk assessment . The aggregate or total MOEs are 410 and 140 for the short and intermediate term, respect ively. The aggregate MOEs are not of concern. Incremental increase to the aggregate exposure from contact ing the soil around treated structures is expected to be minimal as a screening level assessment using high end inputs has been used to est imate the potent ial r isks.

Table 2. Propiconazole Assessment of Children Playing on Treated Structures. MOEs ( Target = 100) b Exposure Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) a Short term Intermediate Dermal Contact 0.0675 450 150 Incidental Oral 0.00563 5,300 1,800 Aggregate 0.0731 410 140 a Dose ( mg/ kg/ day) = See above equat ions for dermal and oral exposure. Aggregate dose = dermal dose + oral dose. b MOEs = ST and IT NOAELs ( mg/ kg/ day) / Dose ( mg/ kg/ day). Where ST NOAEL = 30 mg/ kg/ day and IT NOAEL = 10 mg/ kg/ day. Target MOE = 100.

Data Limitations and Uncertainties It is important to highlight some o f the limitat ions and uncertaint ies in this exposure/ r isk assessment for children playing on treated structures because this assessment is very different than that of the SHEDS probabilist ic assessment for CCA. The following issues should be considered:

  The SHEDS CCA assessment amort izes exposures over a year for a cancer r isk assessment . Conversely, the propiconazole assessment provided in this memorandum is based on non cancer endpoints. Therefor e, input parameters as well as algorithms have been modified from those presented in the SHEDS documents.

  The durat ion of exposure for children playing on propiconazoletreated wood is best represented by the short term durat ion; however, the intermediate term durat ion is also included to indicate 7 what the r isks are for that populat ion o f children which play on treated structures cont inuously for 6 months at a t ime.

  The surface concentrat ion o f 1 µ g/ cm2 represents the high end for data available to the EPA at this t ime. The retent ion for propiconazole is approximately one order of magnitude lower than for this high end observat ion. In addit ion, the 1 µ g/ cm2 represents the surface residue after init ial treatment . The surface concentrat ion is believed to reduce to a lower steady state over t ime. Therefore, the surface residue concentration is assumed to be a very conservat ive est imate, perhaps by an order of magnitude or more.

REFERENCES USEPA. 2000. Resident ial SOPs. EPA Office of Pest icide Programs B Human Health Effects Division. Dated Apr il 5, 2000.

USEPA. 2001. HED Science Advisory Council for Exposure. Policy Update, November 12. Recommended Revisions to the Standard Operat ing Procedures ( SOPs) for Resident ial Exposure Assessment , February 22, 2001.

USEPA. 2003. Propiconazole   3r d Report of the Hazard Ident ificat ion Assessment Review Commit tee. Dated December 17, 2003. TXR No. 0052277.

USEPA. 2005a. Propiconazole   3x database uncertainty factor used in risk assessment . Memorandum from Abdallah Khasawinah ( USEPA) to Chr ist ina Scheltema ( USEPA). PC Code 122101. Reregistrat ion Case#: 3125. Dated December 29, 2005.

USEPA. 2005b. A Probabilist ic Exposure Assessment for Children Who Contact CCA Treated Playsets and Decks; Using the Stochast ic Human Exposure and Dose Simulat ion Model for the Wood Preservat ive Exposure Scenario ( SHEDS Wood). Final Report. February, 2005.


Table 7 8 indicates the relative change in quantities of BMPs associated with Options 1 and 2. Standard quantities of BMPs outlined in Table 7 3 were increased or decreased according to multiplication factors in Table 7 8 to reflect changes expected due to each option. For example, in the case of mulch, EPA estimates that under Option 2, there will be a net increase in the use of mulch by 20 percent over baseline levels, in part to help meet the requirements for 14 day coverage of denuded areas. In the case of PAM, EPA anticipates that PAM will be applied to 20 percent of the denuded acreage, as it is an inexpensive and effective means to improve erosion control. Development Document for Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 7 12 Table 7 8. BMP Quantity Adjustment Factors for Baseline and Proposed Options BMP Type Baseline Construction Option1 Inspection/ Certification Option 2 Inspection/ Certification with Codification of CGP Silt Fence 1.0 1.0 1.0 Runoff Diversion 1.0 1.0 1.0 Mulch 1.0 1.0 1.2 Construction 1.0 1.0 1.0 Stone Check Dam 1.0 1.0 1.0 Sediment Trap 1.0 1.0 1.0 Sediment Pond 1.0 1.0 1.1 E& S Certification 0.0 1.0 1.1 E& S Inspection 0.0 1.0 1.0 PAM 0.0 0.0 0.2 Using the information in Table 7 8, EPA estimated baseline costs as well as the costs for Options 1 and 2. By subtracting the baseline costs from the cost of each option, EPA was able to estimate the incremental costs of the proposed options. Table 7 9 indicates the estimated national costs over baseline of the proposed rule options. Values include design, maintenance, and opportunity/ interest costs. States that are considered to be equivalent to EPA's proposed options are removed from the total national cost estimate increases. The proposed rule is expected to increase compliance costs for ESCs under Option 1 by $126 million, and by $502 million for Option 2 (year 2000 dollars). Option 3 is not expected to have any incremental costs. Development Document for Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 7 13 Table 7 9. National Cost Estimates for Proposed Rule Options Sector Option 1 Total Cost (millions, 1997 dollars) Option 2 Total Cost (millions, 1997 dollars)

Single family Residential 25.7 129.7 Multifamily Residential 12.7 63.4 Commercial 83.8 296.2 Industrial 4.0 11.8 Total 126.2 501.1 7.3 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 7.3.1 OVERVIEW The analysis of administrative costs focused on the costs to permit authorities to incorporate the effluent guidelines requirements into general permits. Administrative costs are expected to be borne by both EPA and States (or surrogate agencies such as conservation districts). EPA's assessment is conservative in that it assumes that all States will have to incorporate the effluent guideline requirements into their permits. However, EPA estimates that approximately 41 percent of developed acreage is under state programs that are equivalent to the proposed requirements contained in Option 2 and, therefore, will not have to modify their permits to incorporate these requirements.

7.3.2 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS TO PERMITTEES When considering the administrative costs to permittees for implementation of the proposed options, EPA estimated the number of CGPs it expects to be issued each year. Table 7 10 indicates the number of construction sites under permit EPA estimates are associated with current development rates, categorized by Option. In its analysis, EPA estimated that construction sites not affected by effluent guidelines (those smaller than 5 acres in Option 2, and those smaller than 1 acre in Option 1) would not incur administrative costs.

Annual administrative costs are expected to be borne by construction firms as a result of site certification and inspection requirements (See Table 7 7). Under Options 1 and 2, site operators will be required to certify that the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been completed, that BMPs are installed according to the SWPPP, that periodic inspections have been completed, and that the site has been stabilized prior to filing of the notice of termination (NOT). EPA estimated that it will take 16 hours per 10 acres developed to meet the inspection requirement. (For construction sites smaller than 10 acres only 16 hours of inspection is Development Document for Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 7 14 required.) EPA used the estimates of construction projects by size presented in Table 4 21 to estimate the total hours required to perform administrative activities.

EPA estimated the total national costs associated with site certifications to be $27,712,000 per year under Option 1 and $16,727,000 per year under Option 2 (1997 dollars). Based on a review of States with greater than 50,000 acres per year development, EPA estimates that 34 percent of acres developed are within States with 14 day inspection requirements that are similar to those proposed under Options 1 and 2. As a result, EPA adjusted downward its estimate of national site inspection costs to reflect equivalent inspection programs. The total resulting estimates for site inspection under Options 1 and 2 are $73,161,000 and $44,160,000 per year, respectively. EPA's estimate of the total annual administrative cost for certification and inspection for Option 1 and 2 are $100,873,000 and $60,887,000, respectively. The total annual administrative costs are lower for Option 2 because sites of less than 5 acres are not regulated. EPA adjusted these cost estimates upward to reflect opportunity costs, resulting in overall administrative costs to permittees of $118,141,000 for Option 1 and $71,290,000 for Option 2. An explanation of this methodology is presented in the Economic Analysis supporting documentation.

7.3.3 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR GENERAL PERMIT REVISIONS EPA estimated the total one time costs for permit authorities to incorporate the erosion and sediment control effluent guidelines requirements into their general permits. EPA's estimates of full time equivalents (FTEs) and costs for each agency to incorporate effluent guidelines requirements are indicated in Table 7 10. To determine costs of incorporating the effluent guidelines requirements into existing State CGPs, EPA estimated that each State will require 200 hours to evaluate and then modify general permits to incorporate new requirements. All 50 States were estimated to encounter administrative costs, even though many States already have general permits that meet some of the proposed requirements. When dividing costs between Federal and State entities, EPA's estimated costs will be allocated based on the percentage of States currently authorized to manage the NPDES program (i. e., 44 of 50, or 88 percent).

Table 7 10. One Time Hours and Costs to Incorporate Erosion and Sediment Control Effluent Guidelines Requirements into General Permits (1997 Dollars)

Program Element Federal State Revise General Permits (hours) 1,200 8,800 Revise General Permits (dollars) $31,000 $229,000 Development Document for Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 7 15 7.4 REFERENCES Schueler, Thomas R.. 2000. "The Economics of Stormwater Treatment: an Update". Article No.. 68 in the Practice of Watershed Protection. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. http:// www. stormwatercenter. net Omernik, James M. 1987. Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Annal of the Association of American Georgraphers. 77( 1): 118 125.

R. S. Means. 2000. Site Work & Landscape Cost Data, 19 th Edition. R. S. Means Co., Kingston, MA.

USEPA. 1999. Economic Analysis of the Final Phase Ii Storm Water Rule. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2002. Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and Development Category; May 2002. EPA 821 R 02 008. http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ guide/ construction/

USEPA. 2002a. Environmental Assessment for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Construction and Development Category; May 2002. EPA 821 R 02 009. http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ guide/ construction/ Development Document for Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 APPENDIX A:

STATE REGULATIONS ON THE CONTROL OF CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER Table A 1: State Regulations on the Control of Construction Phase Storm Water Geographic Area Name Disturbed Area Limit for Permet Coverage (feet 2 ) Numeric Standard or Pollutant Reduction Requirement Minimum Depth of Runoff or Storm Return Frequency to Treat for Water Quality Management (per acre) Maximum Allowed Denuded Acreage or Soil Stablilization Requirement Visual Inspection Frequency Notes Clean Water Act NPDES Storm Water program for Phase I and Phase II MS4s 43,560 After 0.5 inch rainfall and every 14 days Phase II compliance date is March 10, 2003.

CZARA 5,000 Must prepare and implement an approved erosion and sediment control plan or similar document that contains erosion and sediment control provisions.

Alabama 217,800 Turbidity < 50 NTU Alaska (AK) 217,800 TSS > 20 microns 2 year / 6 hour After 0.5 inch rainfall and every 7 days Inspector must be qualified personnel provided by the discharger.

Arizona 217,800 Arkansas 217,800 10year / 24hour Every 7 days Developers must submit erosion and sediment control plan and storm water pollution prevention plan before filing a notice of intent. Sites 10 acres or more need temporary or permanent sediment basin. Sites less than 10 acres need sediment traps and silt fences.

California (CA) 217,800 2 year / 24 hour After 0.5 inch rainfall Inspections will be performed before anticipated storm events, during extended storm events, and after storm events, and once each 24 hour period during extended storm events to identify BMP effectiveness and implement repairs or design changes as soon as feasible depending on field conditions. Discharger is also responsible for inspecting and cleaning all public and private roads for sediment. Construction activities that fall under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)

have separate permit and regulations.

Colorado (CO) 217,800 Any precipitation or snowmelt event that causes erosion and every 14 days Storm water management plan must be submitted to state for a 10 day review, as well as be retained on site.

Connecticut 217,800 80% TSS reduction Delaware 5,000 80% TSS reduction 0.5 inch Florida , DEP, Northern District (only applies in NW Florida) 217,800 80% TSS reduction 0.5 inch* *> 100 acres, 1 inch rainfall, <100 acres, 0.5 inch rainfall.

Florida, South Florida Water Management District (General, Standard General,

Noticed General and Individual Permits) 435,600 1 inch Florida, Southwest Florida Water Management District 217,800 0.5 inch Florida, St. Johns River Water Management District 217,800 Turbidity <29 NTU Florida, Suwannee River Water Management District 43,560 80% TSS reduction 1 inch Georgia 47,916 Turbidity < 10 25 NTU* 25 year / 24 hour *< 25 nephelometric turbidity units for waters supporting warm water fisheries, or <10 nephelometric turbidity units for waters classified as trout waters.

A 1 Table A 1: State Regulations on the Control of Construction Phase Storm Water Geographic Area Name Disturbed Area Limit for Permet Coverage (feet 2 ) Numeric Standard or Pollutant Reduction Requirement Minimum Depth of Runoff or Storm Return Frequency to Treat for Water Quality Management (per acre) Maximum Allowed Denuded Acreage or Soil Stablilization Requirement Visual Inspection Frequency Notes Hawaii (HI) 217,800 After 0.5 inch rainfall and every 7 days during dry season, every day during rainy season Construction shall be phased for large projects; one phase must be stabilized before another can begin. 50 days maximum from destruction of pre construction conditions to temporary stabilization.

Idaho (ID) 217,800 After 0.5 inch rainfall and every 14 days Illinois 217,800 3,600 cubic feet per acre Every 7 days Indiana 217,800 Every 7 calendar days and within 24 hours of 0.5 inch of precipitation Iowa 217,800 80% TSS reduction Every 7 days Kansas 217,800 At least once per week Kentucky 217,800 Goal of 80 % TSS reduction (compared to pre construction conditions)

Louisiana 217,800 Maine 217,800 40 80% TSS reduction 2 year Maryland 5,000 80% TSS reduction* 2 year / 24 hour *Based on the average annual TSS loading from all storms less than or equal to the 2 year/ 24 hour storm.

Massachusetts 217,800 80% TSS reduction 2 year / 24 hour Michigan 43,560 3,600 cubic feet per acre Encourage weekly inspections Sites >10 acres require onsite temporary basin.

Minnesota 217,800 0.5 inch 1 time every 7 days or within 24 hours after a significant rain event which results in runoff leaving a construction site.

Mississippi 217,800 Missouri 217,800 Settleable Solids <

0.5 2.5 mL/ L/ hour* Periodic *2.5 mL/ L/ hour for normal land disturbance, 0.5 mL/ L/ hour for land disturbance within sensitive areas.

A 2 Table A 1: State Regulations on the Control of Construction Phase Storm Water Geographic Area Name Disturbed Area Limit for Permet Coverage (feet 2 ) Numeric Standard or Pollutant Reduction Requirement Minimum Depth of Runoff or Storm Return Frequency to Treat for Water Quality Management (per acre) Maximum Allowed Denuded Acreage or Soil Stablilization Requirement Visual Inspection Frequency Notes Montana (MT) 217,800 2 year / 24 hour After 0.5 inch rainfall and every 7 days Dischargers must submit with the state application form a stormwater erosion control plan (SWECP) that resembles EPA's construction site SWPPP. Permit coverage begins only when Montana DEQ reviews and approves SWECP. Must also inspect everyday during prolonged precipitation or snowmelt periods. A registered PE must prepare the ESC plan if site is greater than 20 acres. Also regulate down to 1 acre if construction site within 100 feet of a surface water body. Montana has a sediment and erosion control guidance manual that lists standard use BMPs. If other BMPs are used, they need to be submitted with ESC plan to the state for approval. For slopes steeper than 3: 1 and greater than 5 vertical feet, surface roughening is required. Filter fences should be used on drainage areas >1acre; sediment traps should only be used on drainage areas > 3 acres; and temporary sediment ponds should only be used on drainage areas > 10 acres.

NC 43,560 Y 20 acres total disturbance at any given time for areas discharging to high quality waters Every 7 days Nebraska 217,800 Once a month.

Nevada 217,800 New Hampshire 100,000 New Jersey 5,000 New Mexico 217,800 Y New York 217,800 0.5 inch North Dakota 217,800 Y Ohio 217,800 Oklahoma 217,800 3,600 cubic feet per acre Y A vegetated buffer zone of at least 100 ft must be retained or successfully established between the area disturbed during construction and all perennial or intermittent streams on or adjacent to the construction site. A vegetated buffer zone at least 50 ft wide must be retained or established between the area disturbed during construction and all ephemeral streams or drainages.

Treatment volume is the lesser of 3,600 or the runoff volume of a 2 year 24 hour storm.

Oregon (OR) 217,800 Every 7 days, and daily during periods of stormwater runoff and snowmelt runoff; only every 14 days during periods of 7 days or more of non

construction activity. If site is >20 acres, erosion and sediment control plan must be prepared by a Professional Engineer, or Registered Landscape Architect, or Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control, and plan must be submitted 90 days before construction begins. All permittees must submit an Oregon Land Use Compatibility Statement if they do not already have one on file with Oregon DEQ.

Pennsylvania 217,800 5 year Y Basins should drain no quicker than 4 days and no longer than 7 days.

A 3 Table A 1: State Regulations on the Control of Construction Phase Storm Water Geographic Area Name Disturbed Area Limit for Permet Coverage (feet 2 ) Numeric Standard or Pollutant Reduction Requirement Minimum Depth of Runoff or Storm Return Frequency to Treat for Water Quality Management (per acre) Maximum Allowed Denuded Acreage or Soil Stablilization Requirement Visual Inspection Frequency Notes Rhode Island 217,800 80 90% TSS reduction 10 year South Carolina >87,120 80% TSS reduction 3,600 cu ft / ac Y Trapping efficiency is a performance based requirement for any BMPs. The major requirements for storm water control plans are: application, location map, type and location of BMP's, construction sequencing, location of disturbed areas, property line & waters of the state, standard notes,

grassing specifications. The minimum required volume for water quality management is 3600 cubic feet for a disturbed area of more than 10 acres.

If there is not a sediment basin of 3600 cubic feet and the drainage area is less than 10 acres, then sediment traps, silt fences, or equivalent measures are needed for sideslope and downslope boundaries for the construction area. However, the first 0.5 inch rainfall runoff in a 24 hr period is applicable to the coastal counties only.

South Dakota 217,800 5 year Tennessee 217,800 Y The permittee shall maintain records of checks and repairs.

Texas 217,800 3,600 cubic feet per acre Utah (UT) 217,800 24 hour OR 1 inch storm event Once every 14 days, before anticipated storm events expected to cause significant runoff, and within 24 hours of the end of a storm that is 0.5 inch or greater. Where sites have been finally or temporarily stabilized, or when runoff is unlikely due to winter conditions, or during seasonal arid periods in arid areas and semi arid areas inspections shall be conducted at least once every 30 days. 10yr, 24hr storm event for water quality is for 10 acres or greater. For areas less than 10 acres, or where calculations for volume of runoff for disturbed acres is not performed, a sediment basin providing 3600 cubic feet of storage per acre drained or equivalent control measures shall be provided. 1) Where the initiation of stabilization measures by the 14th day after construction activity temporary or permanently cease is preclude by snow cover or frozen ground conditions, stabilization measures shall be initiated as soon as possible. 2) In arid areas , semi arid areas, and areas experiencing droughts where the initiation stabilization measures by the 14th day after construction activity has temporarily or permanently ceased is precluded by seasonal arid conditions, stabilization measures shall be initiated as soon as practicable.

Vermont 217,800 Virginia 217,800 3,600 cubic feet per acre Y Sediment basins required for sites of 10 acres or more (except those with final stabilization); for sites <10 acres, same units required but only for sideslope and downslope boundaries of construction sites.

Washington (WA), Large Parcel >43,560 24 hour / 6 month 2 days between October 1 and April 30 (I. e., the wet season); 7 days between May 1 to September 30 (dry season) A 4 Table A 1: State Regulations on the Control of Construction Phase Storm Water Geographic Area Name Disturbed Area Limit for Permet Coverage (feet 2 ) Numeric Standard or Pollutant Reduction Requirement Minimum Depth of Runoff or Storm Return Frequency to Treat for Water Quality Management (per acre) Maximum Allowed Denuded Acreage or Soil Stablilization Requirement Visual Inspection Frequency Notes Washington (WA), Small Parcel <43,560 24 hour / 6 month 2 days between October 1 and April 30 (I. e., the wet season); 7 days between May 1 to September 30 (dry season)

West Virginia 130,680 2 year Y Wisconsin *217800 Y Wyoming (WY) 217,800 Turbidity <10 15 NTU Inspect every 7 days,

except during seasonal shutdowns and during the period following completion of construction but prior to return of the site to "finally stabilized" conditions and termination of coverage, then the site must be inspected every quarter.

A 5 Development Document for Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 APPENDIX B:

SUPPORTING COST DATA Development Document for Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B 1 APPENDIX B: SUPPORTING COST DATA OVERVIEW EPA estimated a reference or standard quantity for each costed best management practice (BMP) that could be applied to construction erosion and sediment controls (ESCs) (e. g., 621 feet of silt fence for a 3 acre single family residential construction site). These reference quantities were set to serve a range of site conditions and slopes consistent with the requirements of the proposed rule. Reference quantities were not varied between ecoregions but were varied in response to alternative levels of management (i. e., regulatory options explored by EPA) as shown in Table B 1. Note that only where values in Table B 1 differ between options and baseline values is there expected to be a change in the cost for site ESCs.

Reference quantities of various ESCs (or construction controls) are listed in Tables B 2 through B 10, along with unit costing and the assumptions used in EPA's compliance cost assessment. Note that for some controls, reference quantities are given in terms of the number of units that will be constructed (i. e., the number of construction entrances anticipated for a certain size site). In addition, where unit costs are nonlinear (i. e., the unit cost varies with the size of the unit), both a design quantity and a number of units per site size class are required to estimate ESC compliance costs. An example of this is sediment basins, where the total volume (the site size in acres times 3,600 cubic feet per acre) is apportioned into a number of installations (i. e., a 70 acre site is estimated to have 2 installations). This process helps ensure that any economies of scale in the calculation of compliance costs are reasonable.

National BMP costs were determined using the following three equations that relate site size class/ land use type models to ESC capital, design, and operation and maintenance costs. Note that Table B 11 contains the regional adjustment factors that customize cost estimates for the 19 ecoregions defined by EPA to make its analysis more representative of actual conditions.

Figure B 1 presents a flowchart summarizing the overall costing methodology. Development Document for Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B 2 TRCC RAF LM S N a Q N i i i b i =                         =   * * * * 1 17 TRDC RAF DF LM S N a Q N i i i i b i =                             =   * * * * * 1 17 TROMC RAF OM LM S N a Q N i i i i b i =                             =   * * * * * 1 17 TRCC = Total Regional Capital (Installation) Cost for a site size class/ land use model Qi = Quantity of elements required per installation Ni = Number of elements required for a single site size class/ land use S = Estimated number of sites in the site size class/ land use a = Multiplier for converting quantity to national average cost in 2000 dollars b = Exponent for converting quantity to national average cost in 2000 dollars RAF = Regional adjustment factor for converting national average costs to region specific costs LM = Level of management; values between 0 and 2 that indicate the degree of application of the element. A value of 1 indicates the full application of an element based on the reference condition TRDC = Total Regional Design Costs DFi= Design factor, a multiplier which represents the design cost as a percent of capital costs Qi = Quantity of elements required per installation Ni = Number of elements required for a single site size class/ land use S = Estimated number of sites in the site size class/ land use a = Multiplier for converting quantity to national average cost in 2000 dollars b = Exponent for converting quantity to national average cost in 2000 dollars RAF = Regional adjustment factor for converting national average costs to region specific costs LM = Level of management; values between 0 and 2 that indicate the degree of application of the element. A value of 1 indicates the full application of an element based on the reference condition LM = Level of management; values between 0 and 2 that indicate the degree of application of the element. A value of 1 indicates the full application of an element based on the reference condition. TROMC = Total Regional Operation and Maintenance Costs OMi= Operation and Maintenance factor, a multiplier which represents the annual operation and maintenance cost which ensure proper operation of the element Qi = Quantity of elements required per installation Ni = Number of elements required for a single site size class/ land use S = Estimated number of sites in the site size class/ land use a = Multiplier for converting quantity to national average cost in 2000 dollars b = Exponent for converting quantity to national average cost in 2000 dollars RAF = Regional adjustment factor for converting national average costs to region specific costs LM = Level of management; values between 0 and 2 that indicate the degree of application of the element. A value of 1 indicates the full application of an element based on the reference condition. Development Document for Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B 3 Table B 1. BMP Quantity Adjustment Factors for Baseline and the Proposed Options Costed Items Baseline Construction Option 1— Inspection/ Certification Option 2— Inspection/ Certification with Codification of CGP Silt Fence 1.0 1.0 1.0 Runoff Diversion 1.0 1.0 1.0 Construction Phasing 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mulch 1.0 1.0 1.2 Seed and Mulch 0.0 0.0 0.0 Construction Entrance 1.0 1.0 1.0 Stone Check Dam 1.0 1.0 1.0 Sediment Trap 1.0 1.0 1.0 Sediment Pond 1.0 1.0 1.1 E& S Certification 0.0 1.0 1.1 E& S Inspection 0.0 1.0 1.0 Polyacrylamide (PAM) 0.0 0.0 0.2 Alum Treatment 0.0 0.0 0.0 Monitoring of Effluent Quality 0.0 0.0 0.0 Development Document for Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B 4 Table B 2. Quantities of Erosion and Sediment Control Items For Assessing Compliance Costs for the Construction Industry Site size Feet of Silt Fence Feet of Diversion Dike Singlefamily Multifamily Commercial Indus trial Single family Multi family Com mercial IndusAcres trial 1

3 621 722 361 361 621 722 361 361 7.5 1,553 1,143 600 600 1,553 1,143 600 600 25 5,175 3,129 2,087 2,087 5,175 3,129 2,087 2,087 70 14,490 5,238 3,492 3,492 14,490 5,238 3,492 3,492 200 41,400 8,853 5,902 5,902 41,400 8,853 5,902 5,902 Both silt fencing and diversion dike lengths were based on 207 feet per acre on the site. Costs for new installation of silt fence are based on $0. 92/ ft length, excluding profit and overhead (R. S. Means, 2000). Costs for new installation of diversion ditch are based on $0. 55/ ft length installation, excluding profit and overhead (R. S. Means, 2000).

Table B 3. Quantities of Erosion and Sediment Control Items For Assessing Compliance Costs for the Construction Industry Site Size Mulched Acreage To Control Erosion Acres Single family Multifamily Commercial Industrial 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 7.5 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 25 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 70 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.5 200 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 For sites larger than 1acre, mulching is limited to the site acreage times half the percentage of ultimate impervious area as a temporary means to stabilize denuded surfaces. The maximum coverage is set to 25% of the total site acreage. Cost to mulch is set to $0. 20 per square yard for materials/ installation without overhead and profit (R. S. Means, 2000). Development Document for Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B 5 Table B 4. Quantities of Erosion and Sediment Control Items For Assessing Compliance Costs for the Construction Industry Site Size Acres Treated with PAM Acres Single family Multifamily Commercial Industrial 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 0.84 1.32 1.50 1.50 7.5 2.10 3.29 3.75 3.75 25 7.00 10.96 12.50 12.50 70 19.60 30.70 35.00 35.00 200 56.00 87.72 100.00 100.00 PAM is costed at $200 per acre per treatment based on a survey of commercial vendors and assuming costs are similar to herbicide for soil treatment ($ 0. 04 per square yard without profit and overhead based on spraying from truck). The acreage treated is equal to the site size times the ultimate impervious percentage, to a maximum of 50% of the site size.

Table B 5. Quantities of Erosion and Sediment Control Items For Assessing Compliance Costs for the Construction Industry The Number of Equal Size Units Installed to Provide Required Protection Site Size Number of Stone Check Dam Number of Sediment Trap Singlefamily Multifamily Commercial Indus trial Single family Multi family Com mercial IndusAcres trial 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 7.5 10 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 25 35 35 35 35 0 0 0 0 70 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 200 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 For stone check dam, assume approximately one unit per 5 acres for sites larger than 5 acres at a cost of $45.36 per installation, excluding overhead and profit (Phase II Economic Analysis for Phase II Storm Water Regulations). Sediment trap of 3,600 cubic feet per acre served at a cost of $0.22 per cubic foot volume (excludes profit and overhead). Development Document for Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B 6 Table B 6. Quantities of Erosion and Sediment Control Items For Assessing Compliance Costs for the Construction Industry Site Size Number of Sediment Basins Acres Single family Multifamily Commercial Industrial 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 7.5 1 1 1 1 25 2 2 2 2 70 2 2 2 2 200 4 4 4 4 Sediment pond of 3,600 cubic feet per acre served. Cost in dollars is computed from the equation: [ 0.76 x 7.47 x (volume required, cubic feet/ number of ponds per site size) .78 ] The value of 0.76 removes overhead and profit from cost estimate.

Table B 7. Quantities of Erosion and Sediment Control Items For Assessing Compliance Costs for the Construction Industry Site Size Number of Construction Entrances Acres Single family Multifamily Commercial Industrial 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 7.5 1 1 1 1 25 1 1 1 1 70 2 2 2 2 200 4 4 4 4 Costs for construction entrance based on $6.92 per square yard (gravel installed) for a footprint covering 100 square yard, excluding profit and overhead (R. S. Means, 2000). Development Document for Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B 7 Table B 8. Quantities of Erosion and Sediment Control Items For Assessing Compliance Costs for the Construction Industry Administrative BMPs for Erosion and Sediment Control Management Site Size E& S Site Inspection Acres Single family Multifamily Commercial Industrial 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 7.5 1 1 1 1 25 2 2 2 2 70 7 7 7 7 200 20 20 20 20 E& S Site Inspection includes multiple site visits by a certified inspector to verify the proper installation and operation of ESC BMPs. Values above are the number of half day site inspections. Costs are based on 16 hours of inspection/ documentation time per 10 acre unit of a site, at a rate of $28.44 per hour.

Table B 9. Quantities of Erosion and Sediment Control Items For Assessing Compliance Costs for the Construction Industry Administrative BMPs for Erosion and Sediment Control Management Site Size E& S Site Certification of Sedimentation Basins Acres Single family Multifamily Commercial Industrial 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 7.5 1 1 1 1 25 1 1 1 1 70 2 2 2 2 200 4 4 4 4 E& S Site Certification includes multiple site visits by a certified inspector to verify the proper installation of sedimentation basins. Costs based on 2 hours of inspection/ documentation by a licensed engineer per 10 acre unit of a site, at a rate of $56.74 per hour. Development Document for Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B 8 Table B 10. Quantities of Erosion and Sediment Control Items For Assessing Compliance Costs for the Construction Industry Site Size Phasing of Construction Acres Single family Multifamily Commercial Industrial 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 7.5 0 0 0 0 25 2 2 2 2 70 6 6 6 6 200 19 19 19 19 For sites larger than 10 acres, the number of remobilizations required is based on a maximum of 10 acres denuded at any single time to prevent large unstabilized construction sites. Costs are based on $1,000 per remobilization. June 2002 B 9 Table B 11. Regional Compliance Cost Adjustment Factors Region or Ecoregion Regional Compliance Cost Adjustment Factors 1 0.85456 2 0.98351 3 0.9 4 0.78103 5 0.85711 6 0.85768 7 0.87 8 1.03221 9 0.877 10 0.99576 11 0.81034 12 0.85357 13 0.93573 14 0.9076 15 1.09438 16 1.1285 17 1.05151 18 1.04609 19 1.05169 Development Document for Construction and Development Proposed Effluent Guidelines June 2002 B 10 Figure B 1. Overall Costing Methodology


DRAFT MEMORANDUM
DATE:	September 8, 2020
TO:		Korbin Smith, U.S. EPA OAQPS/SPPD/MMG
FROM:	SC&A Incorporated
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	Industry Characterization for Carbon Black Production NESHAP
1.0 Purpose and Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an industry characterization for the carbon black production source category. This characterization is based on data/information gathered for the EPA's proposed Carbon Black Production Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR), as well as historic information included in documents prepared in support of the 2002 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) promulgated for carbon black production major sources.
Data/information gathered for purposes of the Carbon Black Production RTR includes data/information provided to the Agency through the Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OECA), Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) website, and the International Carbon Black Association (ICBA), of which 13 Carbon Black Production facilities are members. Based on this information, the EPA has determined that there are 15 Carbon Black Production facilities in the U.S., all of which are major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) subject to the Carbon Black Production NESHAP.
Section 2.0 of this memorandum describes the type and purpose of products covered by the carbon black production source category. Section 3.0 summarizes the manufacturing processes that produce the materials of the carbon black production source category. Section 4.0 details the emissions characteristics of carbon black production source category emission sources.
2.0 Carbon Black Production Industry Characterization
Carbon black is used for a wide variety of applications, including reinforcing, pigments, conductivity, heat dissipation, and many others. Carbon black is used in the production of tires, belts, hoses, wire & cable sheathing, rubber & plastic moldings, roofing materials, seals & gaskets, toners, printing inks, paint and colorants, refractories, and all types of plastics. Approximately 90% of the produced carbon black is used in rubber applications, primarily automotive tires, with 9% used as a colorant for inks, paints, plastics, and paper, and the remainder used for hundreds of other diverse applications.
Carbon black production facilities included as part of the source category are facilities that produce carbon black via any of the three processes: furnace black, thermal black, or acetylene decomposition. Carbon black production is covered by the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 2895 and the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code is 325182. Two other production processes, the lamp black and bone black processes, are classified under SIC code 2816 (Inorganic Pigments) and are not included in the carbon black production source category.
The 15 identified carbon black production major source facilities are owned by 5 companies across 6 states, with facilities being primarily located in Texas and Louisiana, but also located in Kansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Ohio.[2]
3.0 Carbon Black Production Process
Carbon black is produced through partial oxidation or thermal decomposition of hydrocarbon substances. Many processes for carbon black production have been developed and are distinguished either by process (e.g., furnace black, lamp black, thermal black) or by raw material (e.g., acetylene black or bone black). The major components of carbon black production process unit include (1) a feedstock and raw materials section consisting primarily of feedstock storage tanks, (2) a production unit section consisting of one or more reactors, (3) a separation section that includes the filters, (4) a pelletization and densification section consisting of wet or dry pelletization equipment and densification, (5) a packaging and storage section that includes final product silos and packaging for pellets and powder, and (6) a shipping section that consists of storage and shipment of bags and bulk storage. Below is a brief description of each of the three carbon black production processes included in the carbon black source category (i.e., furnace black process, thermal black process, acetylene black process).
3.1 Furnace Black Process
The furnace black process is the process by which carbon black is produced via thermal-oxidative decomposition in a closed system. The furnace black process (representing 98 percent of carbon black production) involves the injection of a heavy petroleum-based feedstock into a closed reactor to atomize the feedstock oil under controlled conditions that primarily converts the feedstock into carbon black and hydrogen gas. The temperature within the reactor ranges from 1,300 to 1,700℃ and is rapidly quenched to about 1,000℃ to protect the carbon black product. The product stream then proceeds through heat exchanges to preheat the primary combustion air. Once the stream cools to about 270℃, the carbon black product is collected in a baghouse in a continuous process. Residual gas from the process is used as fuel (to produce heat, steam, or electric power), or redirected to a combustion device.
Collected carbon black is transported to a micro-pulverizer, where it is further processed. The pulverized carbon black is conveyed to a cyclone and into the surge tank, which accumulates the product and serves as a reservoir to maintain a steady supply to the pelletizers. A non-HAP, water based liquid is added to the carbon black at the pelletizer to allow easier handling. Newly formed pellets are sent to a rotary dryer heated by natural gas and/or gas from the reactor. Dried product is then moved to storage tanks for shipment. Figure 1 presents a process flow diagram of the furnace black process.
3.2 Thermal Black Process
The thermal black process generally utilizes a natural gas feedstock, consisting primarily of methane or heavy aromatic oils, and two refractory lined furnaces that alternate on a cycle between production, preheating, and carbon black production. The feedstock is injected into one of the hot refractory lined furnaces, where in the absence of air, the heat from the refractory material decomposes the natural gas into carbon black and hydrogen. The product stream from the reaction between the two tanks is collected, cooled with water, and the carbon black is removed by a bag filter. The exiting carbon black may be further processed to remove impurities, pelletized, screened, and then packaged for shipment. The hydrogen off-gas is burned in air to preheat the second furnace.

      .

                        Figure 1. Furnace Black Process

3.3 Acetylene Black Process
The acetylene black process relies on the exothermic decomposition of acetylene at high temperatures, which is an attractive feedstock due to its high carbon content. Separation of the carbon black is similar to the furnace black process. However, the acetylene black process typically utilizes one reactor, as it is a continuous process. The reaction continuously occurs at 800 to 1000℃ in a refractory-lined, water-cooled metal retort. The decomposition is initialized by burning acetylene to bring the temperature to the desired level. Once the reaction temperature has been reached, the air supply is cut off to allow for decomposition of acetylene into carbon and hydrogen. The acetylene black process does not include a pelletization process.
4.0 Emissions Characteristics
The primary HAP emitted by carbon black production facilities include carbon disulfide, carbon sulfide, lead, mercury, and hydrogen cyanide. Process vent emissions consist of tailgas from the reactors. The primary emission sources for these pollutants are the main unit filter (MUF) process vents.
The 2002 Carbon Black Production NESHAP established maximum achievable control technology (MACT) emission limits for the MUF process vents. Main unit filter process vents with HAP > 260 parts per million (ppm) are required to use a flare or reduce HAP by 98 weight percent or to 20 ppm by volume (ppmv), whichever is less stringent, by venting through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices. Facilities routing emissions through a closed vent system to a control device/flare are required to conduct initial/annual leak inspections (and meet repair requirements when leaks detected) in accordance with Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
Historically, the majority of facilities in the carbon black production industry utilized flares to control emissions from process vents. Due to State/Federal government and industry consent decree agreements that require additional control of criteria pollutants (particulate matter (PM)) from carbon black production facilities, all but one facility are transitioning from flares to incinerators.
Hazardous air pollutant emissions from process vents after the MUF were not regulated under the 2002 Carbon Black Production NESHAP because HAP emissions from these vents were considered insignificant.
The EPA's evaluation of equipment leaks under the 2002 Carbon Black Production NESHAP also found that leaks were not a significant source of HAP emissions for the carbon black production source category. One of the reasons for this is the low vapor pressures of the raw materials used in the production process (i.e., the typical carbon black feedstock is less than 0.05 kilopascals).
Similarly, the EPA's evaluation of the potential for HAP emissions from storage vessels indicated that they were not a significant source of emissions from carbon black production facilities. This is because the typical feedstock oil used in the carbon black production process is heavy fuel oil, which, because of its low vapor pressure, is not likely to be emitted to the atmosphere under normal operating conditions. In addition, the feedstock oil is nearly solid under standard pressure and temperature and typically needs to be heated to (and maintained at) 120 degrees Fahrenheit to allow it to flow as a liquid.
Lastly, the EPA did not identify any wastewater emissions of consequence as a result of the carbon black production process. The process uses a quench tower to capture the product, and the effluent guidelines applicable to this source category require that there be no discharge of process wastewater to navigable waters from carbon black production facilities.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 14106]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-1177-000]

South Jersey Energy ISO7, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of South Jersey Energy ISO7, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, 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 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability
is March 30, 2015.
    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(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 10, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06128 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01--P


[Federal Register: July 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 43929]
[DOCID:fr29jy08-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13181-000; Project No. 13182-000]

FFP Missouri 3, LLC, FFP Missouri 4, LLC; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

July 22, 2008.
    On April 18, 2008, FFP Missouri 3, LLC and FFP Missouri 4, LLC
(Free Flow Power Corporation) each filed an application, pursuant to
section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the
feasibility of the Missouri River 3 and the Missouri River 4 Projects,
to be located in the Missouri River in St. Charles and St. Louis
Counties, Missouri.
    The proposed Missouri River 3 project consists of: (1) 2,520
proposed 20-kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 50.4-megawatts, (2) a mooring system, (3) a
proposed transmission line, and (4) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed Missouri River Project 3 would have an average annual
generation of 220,752-gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local utility.
    The proposed Missouri River 4 project consists of: (1) 2,820
proposed 20-kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 56.4-megawatts, (2) a mooring system, (3) a
proposed transmission line, and (4) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed Missouri River Project 4 would have an average annual
generation of 247,032-gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Daniel R. Irwin, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930, phone: 978-
232-3536.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, FederalEnergy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-13181
or P-13182) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-17285 Filed 7-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


IMPORTANT NOTE TO USER:

This OMB form has been recreated in WP6.0 by OPPTS staff. The margins and lines are NOT block protected, so you must fill the form with caution, paying attention to any shifting of the existing text. The following tips should make this a simple task:

 Fill in the spaces by using the type over command. Otherwise you'll have to delete a space for each letter you add.

 Use the same font ( Times New Roman 8pt).

 Do not change table lines ( although you can delete an extra space line to provide more space elsewhere.

 It is not recommended that you convert this form to WP5.1, some of these features are not available in WP5.1, so the text will scramble.

If you have any problems or questions, please call your RID Desk Officer @ 260 2706. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request Environmental Protection Agency 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2040  0180 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. Other Specify:

7. Title National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1639.04 9. Keywords Great Lakes Critical Programs Act, water quality, pollutants, NPDES permits 10. Abstract: The primary objective of the Clean Water Act ( CWA) is " to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters" ( Section 101( a)). CWA Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit program to regulate the discharge of any pollutant or combination of pollutants from point sources into the waters of the United States. CWA Section 402( a), as amended, authorizes the EPA Administrator to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants if those discharges meet the following requirements:   All applicable requirements of CWA Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403; and   Any conditions the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions and objectives of the CWA. Section 101 of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act ( CPA) amends Section 118 of the CWA and directs EPA to publish water quality guidance for the Great Lakes System. Provisions of the Guidance are codified in 40 CFR Part 132. The Guidance establishes minimum water quality criteria, implementation procedures, and antidegradation provisions for the Great Lakes System. Permitting authorities currently require dischargers to provide information such as the name, location, and description of facilities to identify the facilities that require permits. EPA and authorized NPDES States store much of this basic information in the Permit Compliance System ( PCS) database. PCS provides EPA with a nationwide inventory of NPDES permit holders. EPA Headquarters uses the information contained in the PCS to develop reports on permit issuance, backlogs, and compliance rates. The Agency also uses the information to respond to public and Congressional inquiries, develop and guide its policies, formulate its budgets, assist States in acquiring authority for permitting programs, and manage its programs to ensure national consistency in permitting. NPDES permit applications and requests for supplemental information currently require information about wastewater treatment systems, pollutants, discharge rates and volumes, whole effluent toxicity testing and other data. Additional information collection requirements that may be necessary to implement State, Tribal, or EPA promulgated provisions consistent with the final Guidance include: 1) monitoring ( pollutant specific and whole effluent toxicity or WET); 2) pollutant minimization programs; 3) bioassays to support the development of water quality criteria; 4) antidegradation policy/ demonstrations; and, 5) regulatory relief options ( e. g., variances from water quality criteria). This information may be used to ensure compliance with provisions consistent with the Guidance and re evaluate existing permit conditions and monitoring requirements. Data on discharges is entered into STORET and PCS, EPA's databases for ambient water quality data and NPDES permits, respectively. Results of water quality criteria testing will be entered into an EPA Information Clearinghouse database. Permit applications may contain confidential business information. If this is the case, the respondent may request that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2, and EPA's Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. However, CWA Section 308( b) specifically states that effluent data may not be treated as confidential. No questions of a sensitive nature are associated with this information collection. 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. The Federal Register Notice required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on April 24, 2001, ( 66 FR 20654 20655); one comment was received.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. P State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. X Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents: 3,795 b. Total annual responses 1,257 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 43,395 d. Current OMB inventory 122,863_______ e. Difference [ 79,468] f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change _ 2. Adjustment __[ 79,468]___________________ ( EPA has not revised its burden estimates; previous OMB estimate of 122,863 hours is a result of not disaggregating contractor/ respondent hours) 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 2,504 ( thousands of dollars) c. Total annualized cost requested $ 2,504 ( thousands of dollars) d. Current OMB inventory $ 0 e. Difference $ 2,504____________________ f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment $ 2,504 ( previous ICR was unable to account for disaggregated costs) 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. X Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. X General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Varies depending on discharger's effluent characteristics 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Mr. Mark Morris, US EPA, Office of Water Phone: 202 260 0312 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

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

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

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

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

© It reduces burden on small entities;

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

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

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

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

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

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

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

Signature of Program Official Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director Office of Science and Technology Office of Water Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Joseph Retzer, Director Regulatory Information Division Office of Regulatory Management and Evaluation ( OPPE) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any 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."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95