PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection The collection is entitled:

Populations, Usage and Emissions of Diesel Nonroad Equipment in EPA Region 7.

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract In response to recommendations from the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, EPA is initiating a systematic data collection designed to improve the methods and tools used by the Agency to estimate emissions from nonroad equipment. Data to be collected include populations, usage rates ( activity) and " in use" or " real world" emission rates.

The collection is a survey, to be conducted by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality ( OTAQ) in the Office of Air and Radiation ( OAR). Development of rapid in use instrumentation promises to substantially reduce the cost of emissions measurement for nonroad equipment. This study will combine rapid in use measurement capability with statistical survey design to improve the representation of nonroad engine populations. The goal to conduct a pilot survey designed to develop methods and protocols needed to collect data on populations, activity and in use emissions of diesel nonroad equipment. Response to the survey is voluntary.

The target population includes nonroad equipment used by commercial establishments in the Mining, Construction, Manufacturing and Agricultural sectors. The study area for this collection will be EPA Region 7. To estimate the prevalence of equipment ownership in the target sectors, 1,540 establishments will be requested to respond to brief interviews regarding their equipment ownership and use. The total sample size for instrumented measurement is 360 equipment pieces, with 150 and 210 pieces targeted for emissions and usage measurement, respectively.

Emissions and usage will be measured using portable on board electronic instrumentation. Emissions instrumentation will measure carbon dioxide ( CO 2) and several air pollutants on an instantaneous basis during normal operation over a period of one to three days. Air pollutants to be measured include carbon monoxide ( CO), total hydrocarbons ( THC), oxides of nitrogen ( NO x) and particulate matter ( PM). The usage instrument will measure engine on/ off over a period of approximately three months.

Data will be collected during normal operation at the respondents' facilities or work sites. Following quality assurance and analysis, the data will be stored in OTAQ's Mobile Source Observation Database. The information collection will involve 1,900 respondents, requiring 1,060 hours to complete at a total cost to those respondents of $ 91,900. For the agency, the collection will require 11,220 hours at a total cost to the agency of $ 725,800. 2 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection In response to a request from Congress, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences established the Committee to Review EPA's Mobile Source Emissions Factor ( MOBILE) Model. The Committee was charged to evaluate the MOBILE model and to develop recommendations for its improvement. In this regard, the Committee recommended that EPA develop a program to enable more accurate determination of in use emissions, using " real world" approaches such as direct emissions monitoring systems. While not a formal requirement of its charge, the Committee also recommended that EPA develop a plan to collect data needed to improve estimation of emissions from nonroad equipment, to include population and activity data and " real world" emission factors ( NRC, 2000).

On the basis of these recommendations, the goal of this collection effort is to conduct a pilot collection designed to develop methods and protocols to collect data on populations, activity and in use emissions of diesel nonroad equipment.

In 2000, EPA developed initial plans for data collections to address these recommendations and submitted an associated ICR to OMB ( OMB Control No. 2060 0078 ( Agency Form No. 0619.09)). The plan included components for both on highway vehicles and nonroad equipment, and was framed as an amendment to a then approved ICR. However, in October 2001, EPA withdrew the proposed ICR amendment, and has since worked to develop separate plans for onhighway vehicles and nonroad equipment.

In the terms of clearance for the withdrawal of the revision, OMB acknowledged that " collection of reliable data about emissions from these types of equipment in use is an important and worthwhile objective, ..." To this end, EPA has developed this collection as an initial step in development of a technically sound and defensible data collection for nonroad equipment. An independent plan has been developed and submitted for on highway vehicles. The terms of clearance for 0619.09 are appended to this document as Appendix A 1.

Legislative Basis. The legislative basis for this data collection is Section 103( a)( 1)( 2)( 3) of the Clean Air Act, which requires the Administrator to:

" conduct ... research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, and control of air pollution," " cooperate with ... pollution control agencies and other appropriate public or private agencies, institutions, and organizations, and individuals in the conduct of such activities," and " conduct investigations and research and make surveys concerning any specific problem of air pollution in cooperation with any air pollution control agency ..."

In addition, Section 103( b)( 1) of the Clean Air Act authorizes the Administrator to: 3 " collect and make available, through publications and other appropriate means, the results of and other information, including appropriate recommendations by him in connection therewith, pertaining to such research and other activities."

Copies of the relevant sections are provided in Appendix A. 2.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The principal users of the data will be EPA technical staff, for purposes of planning a full scale survey based on the results and experience gained during the proposed collection.

These sources of information will guide and inform design of the survey. Supporting analyses will evaluate the adequacy of the proposed sample frames. They will investigate the efficiency of three stage sampling with Probability proportional to Size, based on proposed measures of establishment size. The initial collection will provide valuable experience in conduction of a population sample of nonroad equipment, and in development of rapport with respondents. Finally, analysis and evaluation of the initial collection will enable evaluation of the costeffectiveness of the design as proposed.

In addition, the initial results will guide and inform sample size analyses. Data collected will provide highly valuable estimates of variability in key variables, as well as scenarios and expected differences needed for more refined power analyses. Specific analyses to be performed are described in Part B of this Supporting Statement, in sections 2( b)( ii), " Sample Sizes," and in Section 5( b), " Data Analysis."

3 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication In development of this collection, EPA has attempted to locate sources of data that would partially or wholly duplicate the information to be collected. No such duplication was found. We describe information searches and why the available information does not satisfy the objectives of this collection.

At the outset, EPA searched the Government Information Locator Service ( GILS). In addition, a search of published literature was conducted using a number of search terms related to nonroad equipment categories ( e. g., construction, agriculture), specific nonroad equipment types ( e. g., tractor, excavator), and equipment operating characteristics ( e. g., load, population). No duplication of the data collection effort was found.

To our knowledge, no other agency conducts portable emissions monitoring of nonroad equipment during operation in the field. One previous study, conducted by Environment Canada and the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management ( NESCAUM), collected field 4 emissions data for four nonroad engines and one on highway vehicle ( Ainslie et al., 1999). While the data are useful in themselves, they cannot be considered a representative sample, and EPA's collection effort must of necessity be far broader in scope.

With regard to collection of equipment population and activity some information sources do exist. However, none of them adequately meet the data needs to be targeted for this collection.

In order to predict the demand for " after market" parts in various industries that use nonroad equipment, Power Systems Research ( PSR) has developed the PartsLink database. This database contains survey based data on populations and activity for a wide selection of nonroad equipment. However, these data are insufficiently detailed for performance of analyses proposed for this collection. For example, the populations do not distinguish equipment owned or used in different economic sectors. Also, the activity estimates are reported by respondents on an annual basis, and do not allow distinctions at finer scales, such as seasons or months, much less the partitioning of operating time between the work week and the weekend. Finally, usage is estimated by respondents based on recall. Measurement of usage by instrumentation, as proposed, will improve the objectivity of the results.

An industry publishing firm, MacKay & Company, has conducted a nationwide survey of end users of construction equipment for Construction Equipment magazine. Population and activity data were obtained through interviews, with estimates based on respondent recall. These data are of general interest but are severely limited for our purposes. Overall, the survey is too narrow in scope. Coverage only included the construction sector, and within that sector, the pool of establishments recruited was not comprehensive.

The Houston Galveston Area Council sponsored a survey of construction equipment population and activity within the eight county Houston ozone non attainment area. In the Northeast, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management ( NESCAUM) performed a similar survey of construction equipment populations and activity. While of general interest, the scope of these studies was very limited, both in terms of the geographic areas economic sectors covered.

The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service ( NASS) also conducts periodic surveys of farm equipment and fuel consumption. The Census of Agriculture is conducted every five years. Results from the 1997 Census are available, and the 2002 Census is underway. The survey portion of the Census requests respondents to report information on " Equipment on Place" and expenditures for diesel fuel " purchased for the farm business." The population data is of good quality, but is limited in that results do not distinguish between gasoline and diesel equipment. They distinguish equipment by size, but the size classes are very coarse relative to those used to define diesel emissions standards, and no distinctions are made by equipment age. These three limitations preclude the construction of age distributions and apportionment of engines by regulatory tier, which is critical in assessment of emissions. A second difficulty is that the Census of Agriculture requests no information concerning rates of equipment usage. Farm diesel 5 expenditures may be taken as at least a coarse surrogate for equipment activity. However, the reporting basis for the expenditures does not distinguish among different fuel uses, such as onhighway vehicles, nonroad equipment, heating and cooling, or crop drying. Similarly, if a portion of the expenditure is assumed to represent fuel used in nonroad equipment, it is not possible to link fuel volumes to specific equipment types or engine sizes, or to partition the fuel seasonally. Finally, as implied by the name, the Census of Agriculture covers only equipment used in the agricultural sector.

Census related information is even more limited for other economic sectors of interest. In the 1997 Economic Census, respondents in the Construction sector ( NAICS 23) are requested to report the " Cost of Off Highway Gasoline and Diesel" for their businesses. This value, while potentially a valuable integrator and indicator of equipment activity, does not distinguish between gasoline and diesel fuels. A more serious limitation is that, unlike the Census of Agriculture, the Economic Census does not request construction establishments to report on the numbers of equipment pieces they own or use. Respondents in the mining sector ( NAICS 21) also report on fuel purchased, but not on equipment used. However, establishments in manufacturing ( NAICS 31 33) report on neither fuel nor equipment.

In general, compared to the survey based estimates described above, this data collection offers the advantage of direct observations and measurements of engine populations, emissions and activity. In addition, the planned survey based estimates of population will be compatible with EPA's emissions standards and inventory modeling framework.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB The initial announcement of the public comment period for the proposed ICR amendment was placed in the Federal Register on Friday, September 22, 2000. No comments were received. The terms of clearance for the proposed amendment ( dated 11/ 05/ 2001) exempted EPA from the requirement to submit an " initial" Federal Register Notice prior to submission of this ICR, stating that " Because EPA has already published two Federal Register notices requesting public comment on these studies, in the case of the ICRs seeking approval for the two pilot studies, OMB will waive the requirement that EPA publish a new Federal Register Notice at least sixty days before resubmission to OMB as otherwise required ..." However, a " second" Federal Register Notice will be published concurrent with submission of this collection to OMB.

3( c) Consultations Technical Consultations. In the development of this collection, We consulted with professionals in academia and Federal Agencies with relevant expertise in survey methodology and statistics. Specific parties and contact information is listed below: 6 N. Philip Ross Chief Statistician Office of Environmental Information United States Environmental Protection Agency 202 260 0250 Bimal Sinha Professor of Statistics, University of Maryland, Baltimore County Steven G. Heeringa Survey Research Center, Institute of Survey Research University of Michigan 734 936 0991 Stacey Cole, Chief Manufacturing Programs Methodology Branch United States Census Bureau 301 763 4771 Stan Hoge, Head List Frame Section Census & Survey Division National Agricultural Statistical Service, United States Department of Agriculture 202 720 8853 Focus Group. To obtain the reactions of potential respondents to the subject matter of the survey and the associated burden, EPA sponsored a focus group, composed of nine equipment owners in the economic sectors targeted for this collection. Participants were asked about their ability and willingness to provide information of interest to EPA and to give their reactions to initial drafts of a questionnaire. Overall, participants reported that the draft questionnaire appeared long and intimidating. More specifically, Some owners considered the items too detailed to remember for multiple equipment pieces, and that while much of the requested information would often be available in records, to locate and organize the information would be burdensome. Based on these reactions, we fundamentally simplified the questionnaires, removing items that would require detailed recall for specific equipment pieces, or consultation of records. Items retained are limited to general items that a knowledgeable respondent should be able to recall readily. The collection instruments and specific data items are described in detail in Part B, Section 2( d), " Questionnaire Design." 7 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection For each respondent, participation in the survey is a one time event. Thus, periodic reporting is not requested or required.

3( e) General Guidelines Commercial establishments participating in this collection will not be requested to plan, generate, or retain any records or information. Participation in the program by each owner is on a voluntary basis. Further, this information collection complies with the guidelines in the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2)). Specifically, the collection does not require the respondents to:

° Report information to EPA more often than quarterly; ° Prepare a written response to a collection in fewer than 30 days after receipt; ° Submit more than one original document; ° Retain any records for more than three years; ° Participate in a statistical survey that is not designed to produce data that can be generalized to the universe of study; ° Use a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB; and ° Submit any information that they may consider to be confidential, without EPA demonstrating that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

3( f) Confidentiality Establishment contact information acquired during the survey includes a contact name, street address, and phone number for each respondent, which will be acquired primarily from the sample frames, which are commercially and publicly available information sources. Contact information will not used for any purpose other than contacting the owner to solicit or clarify responses and arrange site visits. This information will not be stored with survey results in the database, but in secured files. A unique respondent ID number will be used in the database, with the link to the personal information also stored in secured files. Contractors retained to conduct interviews and data collection will be bound by confidentiality clauses that hold them to the same standards to be followed by EPA personnel.

3( g) Sensitive Questions The questionnaires do not ask any sensitive questions pertaining to sexual attitudes/ behavior or religious beliefs. 8 4 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes As defined in Part B, section 2( a) " Target Population and Coverage," respondents to the survey will be commercial establishments in four economic sectors, listed below and identified with corresponding NAICS codes.

Sector NAICS Code Mining 21 Construction 23 Manufacturing 31 33 Agricultural Crop Production 111 These sectors do not comprise the entire universe for the use of nonroad equipment. Other sectors are of interest with respect to diesel equipment use, for example, wholesale trade ( NAICS 42) and retail trade ( NAICS 44 45), as well as municipalities and government agencies. However, we have limited the scope of this collection, to keep effort commensurate with expected resources. In addition, a limited scope is consistent with the emphasis that this collection will place on the development and evaluation of feasible methods for collection of the targeted information from establishments in different sectors.

Nonetheless, the sectors selected are important in terms of the usage of nonroad equipment and associated fuel consumption and emissions. Based on estimates derived from sales of distillate fuels in the United States in 2000 ( EIA 2001), the targeted sectors accounted for approximately 60% of nonroad diesel fuel consumption during that year.

Finally, within each two digit NAICS, we have included all three digit subcategories. This broad approach serves one of the collection's primary goals, namely, to screen for the prevalence of nonroad equipment within each sector. Thus, to avoid exclusion of some portion of the nonroad equipment population, we are not limiting the scope for this collection based on advance assumptions about sub categories in which the use of equipment might be low or nonexistent. We define the target populations in more detail in Part B, section 2( a). 9 4( b) Information Requested 4( b)( i) Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements Reporting Items. All items that respondents will be requested to report are listed and described in Part B, Section 3, " Questionnaire Development." The survey will employ three instruments, the " Equipment Ownership Questionnaire," the " On site Equipment Inventory," and the " Equipment Identification, Description and Instrumentation Parameters" attached to the Supporting Statement as Appendices B 1, B 2 and B 3, respectively.

Recordkeeping Items. This collection will not request or require respondents to compile or maintain any records.

4( b)( ii) Respondent Activities Respondent activities for this data collection include:

° respond to Equipment Ownership Questionnaire ( by phone interview) ° respond to interview portion of On site Equipment Inventory ( by phone or personal interview) ° provide interviewer/ technician access to equipment ( during site visit)

In this collection, the degree of participation will differ between establishments in the Establishment sample and those in the Equipment sample.

The " Establishment Sample" is a sample of 1,540 establishments whose only activity will be to respond to the Equipment Ownership Interview. The main purpose of this portion of the survey is to estimate proportions of establishments in each sector that use eligible nonroad equipment. Estimation of this proportion will inform estimation of the sample of establishments that must be drawn to acquire an equipment sample of the desired size.

The Equipment sample refers to a smaller sample of establishments that will be solicited to allow instruments to be placed on one of their equipment pieces for purposes of emissions or activity measurement. These establishments will also complete the Equipment Ownership Interview, as to verify that they are members of the target population. In addition, they will be requested to respond to a brief additional interview, to obtain information about their operation needed to allow an inventory of eligible equipment pieces, and to allow technicians access to eligible equipment to complete the inventory and select a piece for instrumentation.

5 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED   AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY,

AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT The following sections describe Agency activities related to survey design, oversight, and analysis, maintenance and distribution of the information collected. The primary activities associated with the actual collection of information will be performed by EPA personnel or contractors hired by the Agency. 10 5( a) Agency Activities In conduction of the survey, the agency will perform the following activities:

 Develop questionnaires and data forms  Pretest questionnaire  Administer telephone interviews  Travel to and within primary sampling units ( PSUs)  Administer site visits  Quality assure completed interviews  Enter interview responses into computer files  Load interview responses into computer database  Quality assure electronic emissions and activity measurements  Load emissions and activity data into computer database  Analyze survey results 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management The questionnaires to be used for the survey reflect substantial revisions developed following a pretest of an initial draft. The draft questionnaire was submitted to nine respondents from the target economic sectors in a focus group setting. Based on their reactions, we have shortened and simplified the questionnaires. In the current versions, we have emphasized questions requesting general and factual information that respondents can readily provide " on the spot" during a phone interview. We have removed or redesigned items that require heavy reliance on detailed or specific recall or estimation regarding equipment specifications or usage, or a need to compile or consult records.

Due to the brevity and simplicity of the questionnaires, we have selected the telephone interview as the collection mode for descriptive information regarding establishments, their operations and equipment. The use of mail with commercial respondents is complicated by the difficulty in targeting a knowledgeable respondent prior to initial contact, especially for large establishments. Making the initial contact by phone allows interviewers to interact with multiple potential respondents, in order to identify and make contact with a knowledgeable respondent.

Once contact with a knowledgeable person is made, it is simpler and less burdensome to simply complete the interview at that time. Asking respondents to respond to a mail or internet questionnaire would increase burden at that point.

Detailed information regarding equipment specifications will be collected through direct inspection by trained technicians. In addition, emissions and activity data will be collected by onboard electronic instrumentation. The instrumentation is portable, non intrusive and can collect data for periods up to a week ( for emissions), or up two several months ( for usage) with minimal 11 maintenance. The instrumentation is described further in Part B, Section 4( a), " Collection Methods."

These approaches bring two significant benefits. First, they reduce respondent burden in that respondents will not asked to provide detailed information on specific equipment pieces, nor asked to recall usage patterns for specific equipment pieces over periods of weeks to a year. Second, the reliability and objectivity of the information collected will be improved through consistent application of pre specified approaches by knowledgeable technicians.

To ensure data quality for interview information, each interview response will be reviewed for completeness and internal consistency. Emissions and activity data collected via instrumentation will be quality assured through use of computer algorithms. Time series for key variables will also be plotted and visually checked on a case by case basis. Quality assurance steps for data collected are discussed in Part B, Section 5( a), " Data Preparation."

Phone interviewers will record responses on paper questionnaires. Responses will be doubleentered into computer files by personnel trained in 10 key techniques, as a quality assurance measure. Following quality assurance, electronic data will be directly transferred into database software, after download from the instruments.

In addition to the specialized instruments discussed above, EPA will use a telephone system and personal computers in conduction of the survey. Computer files containing interview responses will be stored or managed in spreadsheet software, such as Microsoft Excel ® , or database software such as Microsoft Access ® or Microsoft FoxPro ® . Analyses will be performed using SAS, version 8.2 ® , or SPSS, version 9 ® . Computer files containing emissions or activity data collected by electronic instruments are very large. These data will be managed using database software, such as Microsoft FoxPro ® , with analysis and visual presentation performed using SAS 8.2 ® .

Data will be stored in the " Mobile Source Observation Database," ( MSOD), an Oracle ® database residing on an Agency server. This database is available to the public on request on CDROM and can also be accessed from the server via a viewer based on Microsoft Access ® . Thus, users need not be equipped with Oracle software or expertise to access the database.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility As described above, collection methods for the survey have been designed to keep the burden of participation to a bare minimum, for both small and large respondents. Additionally, participation in the data collection is voluntary, giving small entities flexibility in opting whether or not to participate. 12 5( d) Collection Schedule The schedule below assumes OMB clearance for this collection will be obtained by March 15, 2004. For each task, we show the date targeted for its completion.

Task Date to be Completed Design questionnaires and sampling plan November, 2003 Draw samples June, 2004 Conduct Equipment Ownership Interviews ( establishment sample) July, 2004 Collect Emissions and Activity Data ( equipment sample) July, 2005 Submit Draft Report October, 2005 Submit Final Report December, 2005 6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden Table A. 1 presents initial estimates of burden and cost for respondents participating in the collection. Estimates for the Establishment and Equipment samples are listed separately.

In large establishments, we assume that the knowledgeable respondent would often be a staff member such as a fleet manager or senior mechanic, whereas in smaller establishments, the knowledgeable respondent is more likely to be an owner or proprietor. For this collection, we have listed the times for interview response under the heading of " technical." Estimated times for a knowledgeable respondent to complete the Ownership and Inventory interviews and to provide equipment access are 15 minutes, 15 minutes and 20 minutes, respectively.

The additional time estimates for managerial workers reflect an assumption that in some establishments, particularly larger establishments, the frame contact might not be the knowledgeable respondent. For purposes of burden estimation, we have assumed this case to be the default, and estimated a response time for managerial workers for all establishments. This estimate reflects time for the frame contact to refer the interviewer to a knowledgeable subordinate, and to authorize the subordinate to respond on behalf of the establishment. For small establishments, it is more likely that the frame contact will also be the knowledgeable contact. In 13 such cases, only one contact will be necessary, and the additional time estimated for managerial workers may not be expended.

6( b) Respondent Costs Table A. 1 presents estimated burden and cost to respondents.

6( b)( i) Labor Costs Labor Costs are based on estimates of " total compensation" reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Employer Cost of Employee Compensation ( BLS, 2003). The values used represent compensation rates for " Goods Producing Industries," which include Mining, Construction and Manufacturing. Total compensation includes wages and salaries, plus paid leave, supplemental pay and insurance.

We translated the BLS worker categories into corresponding ICR labor categories as follows. " Executive, Administrative and Managerial" workers were designated as " Managerial." Correspondingly, " Professional Speciality and Technical" workers were designated as " Technical," and finally, " Administrative Support, including Clerical" workers were designated as " Clerical." To represent the complete cost of labor, the total compensation rates have been increased by an additional 100% to account for respondents' overhead costs. Corresponding compensation rates for each category are listed in Table A. 1.

6( b)( ii) Capital and Operations Costs For respondents, participation in this collection will not require any capital or startup costs, nor will it require operating or maintenance costs. Thus, no costs in either of these two categories are represented in Table A. 1. 14 Table A. 1 Respondent Burden and Cost1 Respondent Activity Respondent Time by Labor Category ( hr/ respondent) Subtotal ( hr/ respondent) Labor Cost ($/ respondent) No. Respondents Total time ( hr) Total Cost ($)

Managerial ($ 94.74/ hr) Technical ($ 82.06/ hr) Clerical ($ 43.42/ hr)

Establishment Sample Equipment Ownership Interview 0.167 0.25 0.00 0.417 $ 36.31 1,540 642 $ 55,900 Equipment Sample Equipment Ownership Interview 0.167 0.25 0.00 0.417 $ 36.31 360 150 $ 13,100 On site Equipment Inventory 0.083 0.25 0.00 0.333 $ 28.41 360 120 $ 10,200 Provide Access to Equipment 0.083 0.33 0.00 0.417 $ 35.25 360 150 $ 12,700 Subtotal 1.167 $ 99.96 360 420 $ 36,000 TOTAL 1,900 1,062 $ 91,900 1 Rows and columns may not sum exactly due to independent rounding. 15 6( c) Agency Burden and Cost Table A. 2 presents Agency burden and cost for the Establishment Sample. Tables A. 3 and A. 4 present burden and cost for each Respondent Group within the Equipment Sample. In all cases, separate estimates are presented for Contractor personnel and Agency staff.

6( c)( i) Agency Burden 6( c)( i)( 1) Establishment Sample Table A. 2 presents estimated agency labor hours for each activity listed above in Section 4( a). We have separated labor hours into two components, those hours to be worked by Agency staff and those to be worked by contractor personnel. In general, the contractor will conduct the phone interviews, enter the data and perform initial quality assurance, following which the contractor will transfer the data to EPA. Agency personnel will then load the results into an EPA database and perform quality assurance and substantive analyses.

For contractor personnel, most of the time represents the conduction of interviews and subsequent data entry. These activities are assumed to take 35 minutesand 30 minutes on average, respectively. Time for interviews includes 15 minutes for repeated callbacks, plus 20 minutes for interview completion following a successful contact. The time for data entry assumes 15 minutes for one person to enter a set of results, multiplied by two to allow for double entry.

Interviewers will be supervised by technical staff, who will be professionals trained in survey methods and analysis. We assume the direct involvement of technical staff in the interview to ensure a successful completion or assist in quality assurance of completed interviews in about one half of all cases. When involved, we assume that technical staff will spend as much time on the interview as clerical staff to complete the activity, excluding time for callbacks.

For agency staff, we assume up to 40 hours ( one week) for one technical person to load the set of survey results into the database, after the data has been quality assured and cleaned, as necessary. For analysis, we assume that 1.5 technical personnel would spend about one half of their time over a 10 week period to analyze the data and complete a report. This characterization would be equivalent to 0.75 FTE over a five week period.

6( c)( i)( 2) Equipment Sample Tables A. 3 and A. 4 present Agency and contractor hours for interviews and subsequent data collection for the equipment sample. Again the field work will be performed under contract. Thus, recruitment, interviewing and instrumentation will be performed by contract personnel. EPA staff will play an active role in quality assurance, and will load the study results into the Agency's database. Finally, EPA staff will perform and report on substantive analyses.

Estimates for the two Respondent Groups are reported separately. The two sets of estimates differ with respect to travel costs, because the PSUs for agriculture are more widely dispersed, 16 and because the sample sizes for agricultural equipment are smaller. Thus, travel is more efficient for Respondent Group 1.

Travel. Due to the dispersion of PSUs throughout the study area, travel to and within PSUs is an important component of Agency burden. Travel affects burden in two ways: first, contract employees will be paid for travel time, and second, travel imposes operations costs. Inter PSU and intra PSU travel have been considered separately for two visits to a PSU.

During an initial visit to a PSU, a team of two will collect emissions measurements on a set number of pieces and initiate activity measurement on a set number of pieces. These targets differ between Respondent Groups, with the goals for Respondent Group 1 being four and five pieces for emissions and activity measurement, respectively. The corresponding goal for Respondent Group 2 is one and two pieces for emissions and activity measurement, respectively.

During the trip to the PSU, up to 5 round trips between the team's " home base" and the work site may be made within the PSU for each machine for which emissions are measured, and two round trips for each machine on which activity is measured. For emissions measurement, the intra PSU trips represent one round trip for each of the following activities:

S initial site visit to complete the On site Equipment Inventory and select an equipment piece for measurement,

S instrument installation,

S monitoring to verify proper operation ( 1 2 trips), and S instrument removal.

For activity measurement, only the first two trips would be required, because the instrument is installed during the first visit, but not removed.

During a subsequent followup visit to a PSU, one technician will return to recover the instruments and download activity data for each equipment piece. The followup visit is assumed to require one roundtrip to the PSU, and one round trip within the PSU to each respondent's worksite.

We assume that the typical round trip would be 40 miles in length ( 20 miles one way), at an average speed of 50 mph. These conditions imply an estimate of average intra PSU travel of approximately 2.5 hours per equipment piece during the initial visit, and approximately 0.80 hours per machine during the followup visit.

Travel time to and from PSUs is based on a mean round trip travel time between each PSU and a central location within the study area, assumed to be Kansas City, KS. Field teams would travel from the central " headquarters" location to a PSU and then return, before traveling to the next PSU. Estimates of travel time between Kansas City and each PSU were obtained from the MapQuest ® Road Trip Planner. The mean inter PSU round trip time is 7 hours for PSUs selected for Respondent Group 1 ( Goods Producing Industries), and 9 hours for PSUs selected for Respondent Group 2 ( Agricultural Crop Production). 17 For both inter PSU and intra PSU travel, we have estimated labor costs as for any other agency activity.

Emissions Measurement. Following recruitment and completion of the On site Equipment Inventory, labor estimates to collect emissions data represent the time required to perform five distinct activities.

S Instrument precheck. This step represents time to verify proper operation of the instrument and to perform field spans for the different analyzers or sensors.

S Instrument installation. Before or after the respondent's work hours, a team of two will install the instrument, warm it up and perform final checks before data collection begins.

S Instrument monitoring. This step assumes one to two brief visits during the measurement period to verify proper operation and data capture, or to replace bottles containing gases used by analyzers.

S Instrument removal. During a final visit, the team will perform final field spans of the analyzers and sensors, and remove the instrument from the equipment piece.

S Recording and storage of data. Following removal, the team will download data from the machine, copy it to an appropriate medium for storage.

Activity Measurement. The sub activities for activity measurement are similar, except that the precheck and installation are simpler and quicker, and that installation and removal take place on different visits to the PSU, separated by approximately 12 weeks.

Quality Assurance and Data Analysis. After recovery from the instrument, the contractor will deliver the data to agency staff, who will perform quality assurance. We assume that approximately 3 hours per equipment piece will be required to run automated routines on time series within the file, and to plot and inspect time series for key variables. As stated, EPA will also load the data into the agency's database. After quality assurance and cleaning, one EPA engineer can load the dataset within 24 to 40 hours. Agency staff will analyse the data. To conduct analyses and draft reports, we have assumed that 1 2 technical personnel would spend approximately 70% of their time over a period of ten weeks.

6( c)( ii) Agency Costs 6( c)( ii)( 1) Labor Costs Contract Labor Costs. Labor Costs for contract personnel are taken from Employer Costs for Employee Compensation ( BLS, 2003). Values used represent " total compensation" for selected worker categories under the heading of " Service Occupations." We assumed equivalence between BLS worker categories and ICR Labor categories as listed below, with their respective hourly compensation rates: 18 C C d a i i i = +

=

( ) 1 1 3 BLS Worker Category ICR Labor Category Total Compensation ($/ hr)

Executive, Administrative and Managerial Managerial 43.64 Technical Technical 30.37 Precision Production, Craft and Repair Technician 26.11 Administrative Support, including Clerical Clerical 18.50 The labor category " technician" represents a " blue collar" instrument technician, with academic training at the Associate's Degree level in engineering technology or an equivalent area, also having received project specific training in the installation and operation of the on board instruments. To represent " fully loaded" compensation rates, we increased the the total compensation rates by an additional factor of 100% to represent contractor overhead costs above fringe benefits.

Agency Labor Costs. Labor Costs for EPA staff were taken from the 2003 General Schedule for Civilian Federal Employees. Based on the Schedule, we have assumed average hourly labor costs of $ 46.23 for managerial personnel, $ 33.26 for technical personnel, and $ 15.77 for clerical personnel. These assignments correspond to levels of GS 15, GS 13 and GS 7, respectively, at step 5 pay rates in each case. We have multiplied the hourly labor rates by a " benefits multiplier" of 1.6, to represent the total cost of employment for Federal staff ( OEI, 1999).

6( c)( ii)( 2) Capital and Operations Costs Establishment Sample. Capital costs represent the cost of purchasing databases of establishments for the study area to serve as the sample frame. Given a cost of $ 0.10 per record, a listing of 35,000 establishments for the study area comes to approximately $ 3,500. The initial cost C i was annualized over a three year ICR period to give an annual cost C a, as where d is an assumed discount rate ( 0.07). The summation in the denominator represents a " present value factor" ( PVFA) ( OEI, 1999).

Operating costs associated with the interviews represent the costs of supplies and postage for the initial letter to be mailed to respondents. 19 Equipment Sample. We estimate that approximately five emissions measurement instruments and approximately 60 activity measurement units will be used to conduct the data collection. Because a separate program and budget exist to develop and acquire these instruments, which are intended for use with multiple projects, we have assigned no capital or startup costs for the equipment sample.

Operating costs for emissions measurement represent costs for supplies ($ 25/ operating day), and calibration gases ($ 55/ operating day). Operating costs for activity measurement represent the cost of batteries for the instrument.

Operating costs associated with travel include per diem and vehicle costs. Contractor per diem includes lodging ($ 80/ day) and a meal allowance ($ 43/ day). Vehicle costs are $ 0.38 per mile driven, to represent fuel and maintenance costs . We assume that PSUs requiring one way driving time of less than three hours will be accessed locally from Kansas City, without a need for overnight travel. This condition applies to 30% of PSUs for both Respondent Groups, meaning that 70% of PSUs will require overnight travel. Initial trips to PSUs are assumed to require 2 4 days, including travel, and followup trips ( to recover instruments and activity data) to require 1 2 days, depending on respondent Group and travel distance. Operating costs for travel have been estimated accordingly. 20 Table A. 2 Agency Burden and Cost: Establishment Sample1 Activity Labor Hours Per Respondent2 Labor Costs ($/ Respondent) 2 Capital Cost O & M Cost No. Establ. Total Time ( hr) 2 Total Cost ($) 2 EPA Contractor Total EPA Cont. Total ($/ Respondent)

Man. Tech. Cler. Man. Tech. Techn. Cler. EPA Cont.

Develop Questionnaires 0.029 0.029 1.56 1.56 1,540 45 2,400 Pretest Questionnaire 0.001 0.009 0.003 0.005 0.010 0.013 0.012 0.028 0.60 1.53 2.12 1,540 62 3,270 Conduct interviews 0.002 0.031 0.006 0.125 0.583 0.033 0.715 1.82 29.72 31.54 0.87 0.65 1,540 1,152 50,900 QA Interviews 0.002 0.021 0.006 0.083 0.167 0.023 0.256 1.26 11.77 13.03 1,540 430 20,100 Data Entry 0.002 0.008 0.006 0.033 0.500 0.010 0.540 0.60 21.07 21.67 1,540 845 33,400 Load Data into Database 0.002 0.026 0.006 0.005 0.028 0.011 1.54 0.86 2.40 1,540 61 3,690 Analyze Results 0.013 0.195 0.208 11.33 11.33 1,540 320 17,400 Subtotal 0.022 0.320 0.003 0.030 0.257 1.263 0.343 1.550 18.69 64.95 83.64 0.87 0.65 1,540 2,920 131,200 1 Rows and columns may not sum exactly due to independent rounding.

2 Labor Categories are abbreviated as follows: " Man.," " Tech.,", " Techn.," and " Cler." represent " Managerial," " Technical," " Technician," and " Clerical" personnel, respectively. 21 Table A. 3 Agency Burden and Cost: Equipment Sample,

Respondent Group 1, Goods Producing Industries ( Mining, Construction and Manufacturing) 1 Information Collection Activity Labor Hours Per Respondent2 Labor Costs ($/ Respondent) Capital Cost O & M Cost No. Establ. Total Time ( hr) 2 Total Cost ($) 2 EPA Contractor Total EPA Cont. Total ($/ Respondent)

Man. Tech. Cler. Man. Tech. Techn. Cler. EPA Cont.

Travel, Initial Site Visits 3.48 3.48 6.96 393 393 112 270 1,880 136,200 Travel, Followup Site Visits 2.26 2.26 4.52 255 255 70 150 678 48,800 Conduct Site and Equipment Inventories 0.028 0.150 0.083 1.50 1.50 0.178 3.08 10.0 177 187 270 881 50,400 Collect Emissions Measurements 0.028 0.275 0.083 2.75 4.42 0.303 7.25 16.7 405 422 290 120 906 85,400 Collect Activity Measurements 0.028 0.109 0.083 1.09 0.136 1.17 7.84 64.0 71.9 60 150 196 19,800 QA Emissions Measurements 0.028 3.00 0.083 3.03 0.083 162 7.27 169 120 373 20,300 QA Activity Measurements 0.028 1.00 0.083 0.17 1.03 0.250 55.3 16.2 71.4 150 192 10,700 Load Data into Database 0.028 0.278 0.306 16.8 16.8 270 82.5 4,550 Analyze Results, Draft Report 0.028 1.167 0.067 0.67 1.19 0.733 64.1 46.3 110 270 521 29,800 Subtotal 530 5,710 405,900 1 Rows and columns may not sum exactly due to independent rounding.

2 Labor Categories are abbreviated as follows: " Man.," " Tech.,", " Techn.," and " Cler." represent " Managerial," " Technical," " Technician," and " Clerical" personnel, respectively. 22 Table A. 4 Agency Burden and Cost: Equipment Sample,

Respondent Group 2, Agricultural Crop Production1 Information Collection Activity Labor Hours Per Respondent2 Labor Costs ($/ Respondent) Capital Cost O & M Cost No. Establ. Total Time ( hr) 2 Total Cost ($) 2 EPA Contractor Total EPA Cont. Total ($/ Respondent)

Man. Tech. Cler. Man. Tech. Techn. Cler. EPA Cont.

Travel, Initial Site Visits 5.43 5.43 10.9 613 613 202 90 978 73,400 Travel, Followup Site Visits 5.35 5.35 10.7 604 604 168 60 642 46,300 Conduct Site and Equipment Inventories 0.028 0.150 0.083 1.50 1.50 0.178 3.08 10.0 177 187 90 294 16,800 Collect Emissions Measurements 0.028 0.275 0.083 2.75 4.42 0.303 7.25 16.7 405 422 290 30 227 21,300 Collect Activity Measurements 0.028 0.109 0.083 1.09 0.136 1.17 7.84 64.0 71.9 60 60 78.4 7,910 QA Emissions Measurements 0.028 3.00 0.083 3.03 0.083 162 7.27 196 30 93 5,070 QA Activity Measurements 0.028 1.00 0.083 0.17 1.03 0.253 55.3 16.2 71.4 60 76.9 4,290 Load Data into Database 0.028 0.278 0.306 16.8 16.8 90 27.5 1,520 Analyze Results, Draft Report 0.028 1.167 0.067 0.67 1.19 0.733 64.1 46.3 110 90 174 9,940 Subtotal 720 2,590 186,500 1 Rows and columns may not sum exactly due to independent rounding.

2 Labor Categories are abbreviated as follows: " Man.," " Tech.,", " Techn.," and " Cler." represent " Managerial," " Technical," " Technician," and " Clerical" personnel, respectively. 23 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden Table A. 1 presents total burden and costs for respondents, by activity. The respondent universe is determined by the proposed sample sizes. For the Establishment Sample, EPA anticipates 1,540 completed interviews, at a total cost to respondents of $ 55,900. For the Equipment Sample, EPA anticipates that 360 establishments will participate in the emissions and activity measurement, with the total burden and cost to respondents estimated at 1,060 hours and $ 36,000, respectively. See Table A. 5, below.

Tables A. 2  A. 4 present total burden and cost for the Agency, by Respondent Group and activity. For the Agency, numbers of respondents, burdens and cost vary among the Establishment and Equipment Samples, between Respondent Groups and among different activities. For the Establishment Sample, the respondent universe is again 1,540 establishments, at an estimated burden and cost to the Agency of 2,290 hours and $ 131,200. For the Equipment Sample, numbers of respondents vary depending on whether the activities apply to emissions measurement, activity measurement or both. In addition, the two Respondent Groups vary with respect to travel costs and numbers of respondents. Respondent Group 1 includes 270 establishments at a estimated Agency burden and cost of 5,710 hours and $ 405,900. Respondent Group 2 includes 90 establishments at an estimated Agency burden and cost of 2,590 hours and $ 186,600. See Table A. 6, below.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables 6( e)( i) Respondent Tally Table A. 5 presents total Respondent burden hours and costs. Estimates are presented separately for the Establishment and Equipment samples.

Table A. 5 Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost Collection Component No. Respondents No. Activities Total Hours Total Labor Cost Total Capital Cost Total O& M Cost Establishment Sample 1,540 1,540 640 $ 55,900 $ 0 $ 0 Equipment Sample: 360 1,080 420 $ 36,000 $ 0 $ 0 Total 1,900 2,620 1,060 $ 91,900 $ 0 $ 0 24 6( e)( ii) Agency Tally Table A. 6 below presents total burden and cost to the Agency for the Establishment and Equipment Samples, and by Respondent Group within the Equipment Sample.

Table A. 6 Total Estimated Agency Burden and Cost Collection Component No. Respondents No. Activities Total Hours Total Labor Cost Total Capital Cost Total O& M Cost Establishment Sample 1,540 10,780 2,920 $ 128,800 $ 3,500 $ 1,000 Equipment Sample: Respondent Group 11 270 2,430 5,710 $ 321,500 $ 0 $ 84,400 Equipment Sample: Respondent Group 22 90 810 2,590 $ 146,000 $ 0 $ 40,600 Total 1,900 14,020 11,220 $ 596,300 $ 3,500 $ 126,000 1 Includes Good Producing Industries, Mining, Construction and Manufacturing. 2 Includes Agricultural Crop Production.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden As this ICR attempts to obtain initial approval for this collection, rather than renewal for an existing ICR, there is no change in burden from a previously approved ICR.

6( g) Burden Statements Separate burden statements have been developed for the two survey instruments to be used to collect participant response, the Equipment Ownership Questionnaire and the On site Equipment Inventory. For participants in the Establishment sample, only the first statement applies; for participants in the Equipment Sample, both statements apply. 25 6( g)( i) Burden Statement for the Equipment Ownership Questionnaire Form Approved OMB Control No. 2060 0078 Approval expires dd/ mm/ yyyy EPA is conducting a statistical survey to characterize the prevalence of nonroad equipment usage in the Mining, Construction, Manufacturing, and Agricultural sectors. Information collected will be used for planning of a survey designed to improve our understanding of the populations, usage and emissions of nonroad diesel equipment. Responses to the questionnaire are voluntary.

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 25 minutes per response Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0225, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: 26 Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OAR 2003 0225) and OMB control number ( 2060 0078) in any correspondence.

6( g)( ii) Burden Statement for the On site Equipment Inventory Form Approved OMB Control No. 2060 0078 Approval expires dd/ mm/ yyyy EPA is conducting a statistical survey to characterize the populations, usage and emissions of nonroad diesel equipment in the Mining, Construction, Manufacturing, and Agricultural sectors. Information collected will be used for planning of a full scale survey designed to improve our understanding of the universe of nonroad equipment and to improve inputs used to estimate emission inventories for nonroad equipment. Responses to the questionnaire are voluntary.

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 45 minutes per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0225, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public 27 comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OAR 2003 0225) and OMB control number ( 2060 0078) in any correspondence. 28 REFERENCES CITED Ainslie, B., G. Rideout, C. Cooper and D. McKinnon. 1999. The Impact of Retrofit Exhaust Control Technologies on Emissions from Heavy Duty Diesel Construction Equipment. SAE Technical Paper Series 1999 01 0110.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation June 2003. USDL: 03 446. U. S. Department of Labor, Washington, D. C.

National Research Council. 2000. Modeling Mobile Source Emissions. Committee to Review EPA's Mobile Source Emissions Factor ( MOBILE) Model. National Academy Press, Washington D. C.

Office of Environmental Information. 1999. ICR Handbook: EPA's Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D. C. 29 APPENDIX A 1 Terms of Clearance for Information Collection Request: " Modification to Mobile Source Emission Factor Survey"

( OMB Control No. 2060 0078, Agency Form No. 0619.09) 30 NOTICE OF OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ACTION Sandy Farmer 11/ 05/ 2001 Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Information Collection Strategies Division ( 2822) Washington, DC 20460 In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB has taken the following action on your request for approval of a revision of an information collection received on 12/ 22/ 2000.

TITLE: Modification to Mobile Source Emission Factor Survey AGENCY FORM NUMBER( S): 0619.09 ACTION : WITHDRAWN AND CONTINUE OMB NO.: 2060 0078 EXPIRATION DATE: 06/ 30/ 2003 BURDEN RESPONSES BURDEN HOURS BURDEN COSTS Previous 3,750 1,649 0 New 3,750 1,649 0 Difference 0 0 0 Program Change 0 0 Adjustment 0 0 TERMS OF CLEARANCE:

SEE PAGE 2 FOR TERMS OF CLEARANCE 31 NOTICE OF OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ACTION PAGE 2 OF 2 OMB NO.: 2060 0078 11/ 05/ 2001 TERMS OF CLEARANCE: This ICR has been withdrawn at the request of EPA. The June 2000 approval of the existing collection for light duty vehicles remains in effect until June 2003. EPA intends to submit two ICRs that would request approval to conduct pilot studies of non road and heavy duty highway engine usage. Following successful completion of the pilot studies, EPA may submit separate ICRs to OMB to seek approval for full scale surveys. Because EPA has already published two Federal Register notices requesting public comment on these studies, in the case of the ICRs seeking approval for the two pilot studies, OMB will waive the requirement that EPA publish a new Federal Register notice at least sixty days before resubmission to OMB as otherwise required by 5 CFR 1320.8( d). OMB believes that collection of reliable data about emissions from these types of equipment in use is an important and worthwhile objective, and hopes that appropriate pilot studies can be developed and initiated expeditiously. To this end, OMB is available to work with EPA before submission of the pilot study ICRs to assure that the surveys meet high standards of reliability and statistical quality without imposing unnecessary burden on respondents. Successful pilot studies will address the issues described below. EPA should address these issues before submitting ICRs for the pilot studies to OMB for approval. >>> Nonroad Pilot Study EPA needs to conduct pilot studies to examine the feasibility of collecting data on the populations of nonroad vehicles, the activity of nonroad equipment, and the average power output and emissions rates for nonroad vehicles. As part of this effort, methodological research needs to be conducted to determine the appropriate methods for gathering this kind of data. More specifically, pilot investigations need to focus on:  development of appropriate sample frame( s) for establishments that have nonroad vehicles. In developing the frames, the agency should keep in mind the likelihood of potential coverage errors and the precision of the estimates that it wants to obtain.  evaluation of assumptions about the likelihood of establishments owning nonroad equipment  evaluation of all questionnaires using appropriate cognitive methodology on potential respondents.  design of a separate frame and appropriate questionnaire for household respondents  implementation and execution of a screening survey with acceptable response rates The goal of these pilot tests and research investigations is NOT to provide estimates for any population parameters or 32 models, but is to evaluate the feasibility of the methods and procedures that can be used to obtain this kind of information. Therefore, the data gathered as part of these pilot studies will not be appropriate for estimating central tendency, relations among the characteristics of the equipment and emissions, or for inclusion into NONROAD models. >>> Mobile Pilot Study EPA needs to conduct pilot studies to examine the feasibility of collecting data on the emissions rates for on highway heavy duty vehicles. As part of this effort, methodological research needs to be conducted to determine the appropriate methods for gathering this kind of data. More specifically, pilot investigations need to focus on:  development of appropriate sample frame( s). In developing the frames, the agency should keep in mind the likelihood of potential coverage errors and the precision of the estimates that it wants to obtain.  design of a separate frame and appropriate questionnaire for household respondents. The goal of these pilot tests and research investigations is NOT to provide estimates for any population parameters or models, but is to evaluate the feasibility of the methods and procedures that can be used to obtain this kind of information. The data gathered as part of these pilot studies will not be appropriate for estimating central tendency, relations among the characteristics of the equipment and emissions, or for inclusion into MOBILE models.

_____________________________________________________________ OMB Authorizing Official Title Donald R. Arbuckle Deputy Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs _____________________________________________________________ 33 APPENDIX A 2 Relevant Sections of Statutes  34 The Statutes relevant to this collection are § 103( a) and § 103( b) of the Clean Air Act, listed below:

Sec. 103. ( a) The Administrator shall establish a national research and development program for the prevention and control of air pollution and as part of such program shall

( 1) conduct, and promote the coordination and acceleration of, research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects ( including health and welfare effects), extent, prevention, and control of air pollution;

( 2) encourage, cooperate with, and render technical services and provide financial assistance to air pollution control agencies and other appropriate public or private agencies, institutions, and organizations, and individuals in the conduct of such activities;

( 3) conduct investigations and research and make surveys concerning any specific problem of air pollution in cooperation with any air pollution control agency with a view to recommending a solution of such problem, if he is requested to do so by such agency or if, in his judgment, such problem may affect any community or communities in a State other than that in which the source of the matter causing or contributing to the pollution is located;

( 4) establish technical advisory committees composed of recognized experts in various aspects of air pollution to assist in the examination and evaluation of research progress and proposals and to avoid duplication of research; and ( 5) conduct and promote coordination and acceleration of training for individuals relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, and control of air pollution.

( b) In carrying out the provisions of the preceding subsection the Administrator is authorized to

( 1) collect and make available, through publications and other appropriate means, the results of and other information, including appropriate recommendations by him in connection therewith, pertaining to such research and other activities;

( 2) cooperate with other Federal departments and agencies, with air pollution control agencies, with other public and private agencies, institutions, and organizations, and with any industries involved, in the preparation and conduct of such research and other activities;

( 3) make grants to air pollution control agencies, to other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations, and to individuals, for purposes stated in subsection ( a)( 1) of this section;  35 ( 4) contract with public or private agencies, institutions, and organizations, and with individuals, without regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes ( 31 U. S. C. 529; 41 U. S. C. 5);

( 5) establish and maintain research fellowships, in the Environmental Protection Agency and at public or nonprofit private educational institutions or research organizations;

( 6) collect and disseminate, in cooperation with other Federal departments and agencies, and with other public or private agencies, institutions, and organizations having related responsibilities, basic data on chemical, physical, and biological effects of varying air quality and other information pertaining to air pollution and the prevention and control thereof;

( 7) develop effective and practical processes, methods, and prototype devices for the prevention or control of air pollution; and ( 8) construct facilities, provide equipment, and employ staff as necessary to carry out this Act.

In carrying out the provisions of subsection ( a), the Administrator shall provide training for, and make training grants to, personnel of air pollution control agencies and other persons with suitable qualifications and make grants to such agencies, to other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations for the purposes stated in subsection ( a)( 5). Reasonable fees may be charged for such training provided to persons other than personnel of air pollution control agencies but such training shall be provided to such personnel of air pollution control agencies without charge.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 151 (Thursday, August 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46985-46987]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19349]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9931-98-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), notice is hereby given of a proposed
consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Center for Biological
Diversity and Center for Environmental Health (collectively
``Plaintiffs''): Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. EPA, No.
3:14-cv-05138-WHO (N.D. CA). In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege that
EPA has failed to find that Iowa and Puerto Rico failed to

submit nonattainment state implementation plans (``SIPs'') for the
Pottawattamie and Arecibo areas designated nonattainment for the 2008
lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (``NAAQS''). They also
allege that EPA has failed to take final action to approve or
disapprove, in whole or in part, certain 2008 lead NAAQS nonattainment
SIP submissions from Florida (Tampa/Hillsborough area), Minnesota
(Eagan area), Texas (Frisco area), Indiana (Muncie area), and Ohio
(Cleveland and Delta areas). In addition, Plaintiffs allege that EPA
has failed to take final action to approve or disapprove, in whole or
in part, North Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission addressing the
requirements for the 2008 lead NAAQS. The proposed consent decree would
establish deadlines for EPA to take final actions for meeting these
obligations.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by September 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2015-0536, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method);
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Skinner-Thompson, Air and
Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by the
Plaintiffs seeking to compel the Administrator to take actions under
CAA section 110(k) regarding several SIP submissions for the 2008 lead
NAAQS.
    The proposed consent decree addresses the Plaintiffs' allegation
that EPA has failed to perform a duty mandated by CAA section
110(k)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(1)(B), to find that Iowa and Puerto
Rico failed to submit nonattainment SIPs for the Pottawattamie and
Arecibo areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. After
the complaint was filed, EPA received nonattainment SIP submissions
from Iowa and Puerto Rico addressing the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(I) for the designated areas and EPA determined that the
submissions were administratively complete. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
would agree that this allegation is now moot.
    The proposed consent decree also addresses the allegation that EPA
failed to perform a duty mandated by CAA section 110(k)(2)-(4), 42
U.S.C. 7410(k)(2)-(4), to take final action to approve or disapprove,
in whole or in part, certain 2008 lead NAAQS nonattainment SIP
submissions from Florida (Tampa/Hillsborough area), Minnesota (Eagan
area), Texas (Frisco area), Indiana (Muncie area), and Ohio (Cleveland
and Delta areas) addressing the requirements of 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)(I). Based on several factors, Plaintiffs would agree to
withdraw their claim with respect to the Frisco area and would agree
that the allegation with respect to the Tampa/Hillsborough area is now
moot. Additionally, the proposed consent decree addresses Plaintiffs'
allegation that EPA failed to perform a duty mandated by CAA section
110(k)(2)-(4), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(2)-(4), to take final action to
approve or disapprove, in whole or in part, North Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submission addressing the requirements of 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2) for the 2008 lead NAAQS. The proposed consent decree
establishes deadlines for EPA final actions to meet these obligations.
See the proposed consent decree for further details.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
interveners to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be
withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2015-0536) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, information that is claimed
as confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment

period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be
marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: July 29, 2015.
Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-19349 Filed 8-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 114)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33705-33708]
[DOCID:fr15jn10-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 156

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0327; FRL-8830-7]
RIN 2070-AJ74

Pesticide Management and Disposal; Standards for Pesticide
Containers and Containment; Change to Labeling Compliance Date

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the pesticide container and containment
regulations to provide a 4-month extension of the 40 CFR 156.159
labeling compliance date from August

16, 2010 to December 16, 2010. This change is being made because there
is insufficient time for pesticide registrants, EPA and states to
complete the label amendments. This change will avoid the temporary
removal of a significant number of pesticides from the market while a
1-year extension proposed elsewhere in today's Federal Register
proceeds through the rulemaking process, and while pesticide
registrants, EPA and states work to update the pesticide labels to
comply with the label requirements in the container and containment
regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0327. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Fitz, Field and External Affairs
Division (FEAD) (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a
pesticide formulator. Potentially affected entities may include, but
are not limited to:
     Pesticide formulators (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
establishments that formulate and prepare insecticides, fungicides,
herbicides or other pesticides from technical chemicals or concentrates
produced by pesticide manufacturing establishments.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

II. Background

    On August 16, 2006, EPA promulgated a final rule titled ``Pesticide
Management and Disposal; Standards for Pesticide Containers and
Containment'' (71 FR 47330) (container and containment rule),
establishing 40 CFR part 165 and amending 40 CFR part 156. The
container and containment rule established regulations for the safe
storage and disposal of pesticides to reduce the likelihood of
unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment. The
container and containment regulations include requirements for
pesticide container design; procedures, standards, and label language
to facilitate removal of pesticides from containers prior to their
being used, recycled, or discarded; and requirements for containment of
stationary pesticide containers and procedures for container refilling
operations. The 2006 rule required that all pesticide products
distributed or sold by a registrant as of August 16, 2009, bear labels
that comply with the rule's label language requirements (40 CFR
156.159). On October 29, 2008, EPA promulgated a final rule that made
various amendments to the container and containment rule, including
extending the original labeling compliance date from August 16, 2009 to
August 16, 2010.
    Specifically, 40 CFR part 156, subpart H, titled ``Container
Labeling,'' requires the following information or statements on certain
pesticide product labels:
     A statement identifying the container as nonrefillable or
refillable.
     On nonrefillable containers, statements providing basic
instructions for managing the container and a batch code.
     Cleaning instructions for some nonrefillable containers.
     Cleaning instructions for refillable containers at the end
of their useful lives.
    In addition, the container and containment rule modified several
existing requirements in 40 CFR 156.10, including allowing for blank
spaces on the labels of some refillable containers for the net contents
and EPA establishment number and adding a reference to the container
and containment regulations in 40 CFR part 156 subpart H.
    The 2008 rule that amended the container and containment rule by
extending the original labeling compliance date to August 16, 2010,
also changed the phrase ``sold or distributed'' to ``released for
shipment'' as associated with all of the compliance dates and made
several other changes to the label requirements and various minor
editorial changes.

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is amending the container and containment regulations to
provide a 4-month extension of the 40 CFR 156.159 labeling compliance
date from August 16, 2010 to December 16, 2010. This change is being
made to allow more time for the Agency to propose and solicit comments
on the consideration of a 1-year extension to address concerns raised
by stakeholders and as a result of further Agency consideration.
    Accomplishing the label amendments required in 40 CFR part 156
subpart H is a multistep process. Registrants must identify the changes
appropriate for their particular products and apply to EPA for an
amended registration. EPA must review the proposed changes and
determine whether they are consistent with the regulations, and advise
the registrant of the Agency's findings. If the EPA approves the
changes, the registrant must then seek approval of the various state
pesticide regulatory agencies. Upon approval of the state agencies, the
registrant must have the new labels printed and applied to its
products.
    In March 2010, EPA was contacted by stakeholders with concerns
about being able to have all labels changed by the label compliance
date of August 16, 2010. Some registrants have asserted that they will
not have sufficient time to change all labels for pesticides that are
released for shipment after August 16, 2010 despite efforts by
registrants, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and state
agencies. The time constraints are due to several factors, including:
     More antimicrobial product labels than expected require
alternate rinsing instructions, rather than the standard text in the
regulations. Therefore, these amendments cannot be made by
notification, and require more time consuming reviews by EPA.
     EPA's position on the appropriate container-related
statements

(particularly rinsing and treatment of rinsate) for certain pesticides
has changed over time as a result of experience with product-by-product
label reviews. This has resulted in reconsideration of some decisions,
and has caused some confusion in the regulated community.
     The length of time for states to review and approve labels
is understood to be increasing due to the furlough days for staff in
some states and staffing reductions due to budget shortfalls.
    EPA has concluded that there is insufficient time to change all
labels by August 2010. Since registrants can decide which registered
products they wish to market at any given time, the Agency does not
have a precise count of the total number of label changes that
ultimately will be submitted to EPA for review. However, based upon a
review of recent Agency actions and discussions with registrants, EPA
estimates that the majority of label changes already have been
submitted and approved. On the other hand, EPA estimates that there are
at least 1,000 labels and potentially several thousand remaining
pesticide product labels that EPA still needs to review. Even if all of
those applications were submitted immediately, there would not be
enough time for the label changes to be approved by EPA and the states,
printed, and applied to all products that will be released for shipment
after August 16, 2010.
    Because EPA actions contributed to the large number of outstanding
label changes, EPA believes that it is appropriate to extend the
Sec. 156.159 compliance date by 1 year, to August 16, 2011, and has
published in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking soliciting public comment on such a 1-
year extension. Because that rulemaking effort could not become
effective before August 16, 2010, EPA is issuing this final rule
providing for a 4-month extension. As discussed in Unit IV., EPA
believes an additional 4 months will be sufficient to allow the
proposed rule to become final and effective, and that the proposed
additional year (not cumulative with the 4-month extension) will
provide enough time for EPA and the states to review the label changes
and for registrants to incorporate the changes into their labels,
provided that all applications are submitted soon.
    During this 4-month extension, pesticide registrants should
continue to submit applications for label changes for their products
prior to the current deadline of August 16, 2010. EPA will give
priority to applications submitted prior to August 16, 2010, with the
goal of processing them to allow sufficient time for the registrant to
obtain state approvals of the new labeling by the revised compliance
date. Applications submitted after August 16, 2010 will be processed on
a non-priority basis only after all applications submitted prior to
that date have been processed. Registrants should carefully consider
this and the timing of their submission to ensure that they have
sufficient time to obtain state approvals by the revised compliance
date.

IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    This final rule is issued pursuant to the authority given the
Administrator of EPA in sections 2 through 34 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136-136y.
Sections 19(e) and (f) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136a(e) and (f), grant EPA
broad authority to establish standards and procedures to assure the
safe use, reuse, storage, and disposal of pesticide containers. FIFRA
section 19(e) requires EPA to promulgate regulations for the design of
pesticide containers that will promote the safe storage and disposal of
pesticides. FIFRA section 19(f) requires EPA to promulgate regulations
prescribing procedures and standards for the removal of pesticides from
containers prior to disposal. FIFRA section 25(a), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a),
authorizes EPA to issue regulations to carry out provisions of FIFRA.
    Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds
that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or
contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has
determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final
without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because such notice
and opportunity for comment is contrary to the public interest, for the
following reasons.
    EPA is extending by 4 months the existing August 16, 2010 deadline
for complying with the 40 CFR part 156 subpart H requirements that
pesticide products bear label language to facilitate the safe use,
refill and reuse of containers and the removal of pesticides from
containers prior to their being recycled or discarded. Providing a
comment period would not allow enough time to make the rule change
effective before the compliance deadline. Publishing a proposed rule
for comment would be contrary to the public interest because the August
16, 2010 deadline, if left unchanged, would temporarily remove from the
market a significant number of pesticides important to the protection
of public health and the nation's food supply, without comparable
benefits to public health or the environment.
    EPA had anticipated that the August 16, 2010 deadline would allow
an appropriate length of time for new language to be incorporated into
the labels of roughly 15,000 registered products. In order to
facilitate this process, EPA has allowed expedited amendments to
pesticide registrations (per 40 CFR 152.46(a)) for changes that exactly
match the sample language provided in the regulation. EPA has recently
become aware that a disproportionate number of the remaining products
will require individualized review and approval of alternative, and
often unique, label language. Moreover, a majority of the products that
require individualized decisions are public health disinfectants and
sanitizers, which are critical to maintaining safe and sanitary
conditions in hospitals, food preparation areas, and other
institutional settings. While EPA believes that the 40 CFR part 156
subpart H requirements will provide substantial benefits to public
health and the environment over the long term, EPA does not believe
that the public interest is served by removing these products from the
market during the time necessary to approve and implement the new label
language. The statutory and procedural steps required for full notice
and comment rulemaking under FIFRA could not be completed before the
August 16, 2010 compliance date. Therefore, EPA is issuing this final
rule to extend the compliance date by 4 months to give the Agency time
to complete the notice and public comment procedure, which EPA is
initiating with the accompanying Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that is
published in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule only amends an existing regulation to extend the
current compliance date, it does not otherwise amend or impose any
other requirements. As such, this action is not subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Nor does it impose or change any
information

collection burden that requires additional review by OMB under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). The information collection activities contained in the
regulations are already approved under OMB control number 2070-0133
(EPA ICR No. 1632). 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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Because the Agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this
action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA
or any other statute as stated in Unit IV. of this preamble, it is not
subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). In
addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as
described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA.
    This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), or
federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
    Since this action is not economically significant under Executive
Order 12866, it is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), and 13211, Actions concerning
Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
    This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
    This rule does not involve special consideration of environmental
justice related issues as specified in Executive Order 12898, entitled
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    EPA's compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for the
existing regulations is discussed in the August 16, 2006 and October
29, 2008 Federal Register documents.

VI. FIFRA Mandated Reviews

    As provided in FIFRA section 25(a)(2) and (d), the Secretary of
Agriculture and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel waived review of
this final rule. Also in accordance with FIFRA section 25(a), the
Agency transmitted this final rule to the Secretary of the Senate and
the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 156

    Environmental protection, Labeling, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: June 9, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 156--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 156 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 through 136y.
0
2. Revise Sec.  156.159 to read as follows:

Sec.  156.159  Compliance date.

    Any pesticide product released for shipment by a registrant after
December 16, 2010 must bear a label that complies with Sec. Sec.
156.10(d)(7), 156.10(f), 156.10(i)(2)(ix), 156.140, 156.144, 156.146
and 156.156.
[FR Doc. 2010-14403 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S