[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12873-12877]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5051]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0117; FRL-8863-2]

Potassium Benzoate; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of potassium benzoate (Cas No. 582-25-2)
under 40 CFR 180.910 when used as an inert ingredient (preservative) in
pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural
commodities after harvest, and under 40 CFR 180.930 when used as an
inert ingredient (preservative) in pesticide formulations applied to
animals (used for food). Landis International, on behalf of Whitmire
Micro-Gen submitted two petitions to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of potassium
benzoate.

DATES: This regulation is effective March 9, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 9, 2011, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0117. 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: Elizabeth Fertich, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    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.

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0117 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
May 9, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0117, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation

(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of February 6, 2008 (73 FR 6964) (FRL-8350-
9), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 7E7241) by
Landis International, on behalf of Whitmire Micro-Gen, 3185 Madison
Highway, P.O. Box 5126, Valdosta, GA 31603-5126, under docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0040. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be
amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of potassium benzoate (Cas No. 582-25-2) when
used as an inert ingredient (preservative) in pesticide formulations
applied pre- and post-harvest. In the Federal Register of June 4, 2008
(73 FR 31862) (FRL-8365-3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408
of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition
(PP 8E7333) by Landis International, on behalf of Whitmire Micro-Gen,
3185 Madison Highway, P.O. Box 5126, Valdosta, GA 31603-5126, under
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0059. The petition requested that 40
CFR 180.930 be amended by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of potassium benzoate (Cas No.
582-25-2) when used as an inert ingredient (preservative) in pesticide
formulations applied to animals. Both notices referenced a summary of
the petition prepared by Landis International, on behalf of Whitmire
Micro-Gen, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Two comments were received in the docket for PP
7E7241, however they are unrelated to potassium benzoate and the Agency
believes they were placed in this docket in error by the commenters.
There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing for
PP 8E7333.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue * * *.''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with section 408(c)(2)(A) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for potassium benzoate including
exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with potassium benzoate
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Potassium benzoate is an approved food preservative, similar in
structure and reactivity to the more widely used sodium benzoate. Both
are classified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as
Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS). In conducting this assessment,
toxicity data on potassium benzoate and the surrogate chemicals sodium
benzoate and benzoic acid were used. Both potassium benzoate and sodium
benzoate are salts of benzoic acid. Because all benzoates, in
particular benzoic acid and sodium benzoate, react similarly to
potassium benzoate, they were used as surrogates in the development of
this profile.
    Available data show that the acute toxicity of potassium benzoate
is negligible, having an oral median lethal dose (LD50) of
>10,000 milligrams per kilogram body weight (mg/kg/bw). Acute dermal
and inhalation toxicity is low as indicated by the >2,000 mg/kg/bw
LD50 and >12.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) median lethal
concentration (LC50) of benzoic acid. Sodium benzoate was
not irritating to the skin and induced only slight eye irritation in
rabbits. Sodium benzoate and benzoic acid were non-sensitizing in
animal tests but showed a very low incidence of sensitization in humans
patch tested. Both sodium benzoate and benzoic acid are known to induce
non-immunogenic contact reactions, and that is the likely explanation
for the low positive response.
    Subacute, subchronic and chronic toxicity data also indicate that
potassium benzoate should be relatively nontoxic. Available oral and
dermal studies had a no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) >=2,000
mg/kg/bw and the inhalation study had a NOAEL >25 milligrams per cubic
meter (mg/m\3\). Sodium benzoate was not

carcinogenic in a lifetime mouse feeding study and there is no
indication that potassium benzoate should be neurotoxic. Genotoxicity
studies indicate the benzoates are not mutagenic; however chromosomal
aberration studies gave ambiguous results. Benzoic acid did not induce
reproductive toxicity in a 4-generation study. In the human body under
normal physiological conditions, potassium benzoate changes from the
ionized form to the undissociated benzoic acid. Benzoic acid and its
salts are rapidly absorbed by mammals, conjugated with glycine, and
rapidly excreted in the urine as hippuric acid. There is no reported
accumulation of benzoate in the body. However, the ability to conjugate
benzoic acid depends upon adequate liver function and nutritional
supply of glycine.
    All data indicates that potassium benzoate is relatively non-toxic
as are the other benzoates. No toxicity would be expected from
potassium benzoate when used at low concentrations in pesticides.
    No developmental toxicity studies are available in the database.
However, no systemic toxicity was observed at doses up to 750 mg/kg/
day, the highest dose tested (HDT), in a 4-generation reproductive
study with benzoic acid. In addition, no systemic toxicity was observed
in the laboratory animals at high doses >2,000 mg/kg/day of potassium
benzoate and benzoates indicating relatively low hazard potential.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by potassium benzoate as well as the NOAEL and
the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity
studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document ``PC
Code 709103: Potassium Benzoate (CAS Reg. No. 582-25-2); Human Health
Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to the Support
Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an
Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations,'' page 7 docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0117.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Subacute, subchronic and chronic toxicity data indicate that
potassium benzoate is relatively nontoxic. Available oral and dermal
toxicity studies had a NOAEL greater than or equal to 2,000 mg/kg/day
and the inhalation study had a NOAEL greater than 25 mg/m\3\. Sodium
benzoate was not shown to be carcinogenic and there is no indication
that potassium benzoate will be neurotoxic. Studies also indicate that
benzoates are not mutagenic and benzoic acid did not induce
reproductive toxicity in a 4-generation study. Since no toxicity was
observed at high doses, quantitative risk assessment is deemed
unnecessary.

 C. Exposure Assessment

    No hazard was identified for the acute and chronic dietary
assessment (food and drinking water), or for the short, intermediate,
and long term residential assessments, therefore no aggregate risk
assessments were performed. Available toxicological studies indicate
lack of systemic toxicity at doses up to 2,000 mg/kg/day. Therefore, no
quantitative dietary or occupational and residential risk assessment
was conducted.
    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses and drinking water. In
evaluating dietary exposure to potassium benzoate, EPA considered
exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. Since toxicity was seen only at doses greater than 2,000 mg/
kg/day for potassium benzoate, a quantitative exposure assessment for
potassium benzoate was not conducted. Any possible dietary exposure to
potassium benzoate from its use as an inert ingredient in pesticide
products would be through consumption of food to which pesticide
products containing it have been applied and possibly through drinking
water (from runoff). Metabolism data indicates that potassium benzoate
would be rapidly absorbed, metabolized, and excreted.
    2. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
Potassium benzoate is used in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. It can
also be used in nonfood use pesticide products. Considering the low
toxicity of potassium benzoate, residues of concern are not anticipated
from residential exposures (inhalation and dermal) and therefore a
quantitative aggregate risk assessment was not performed.
    3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found potassium benzoate to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and potassium benzoate does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
potassium benzoate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X,
or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    No developmental toxicity studies are available in the database.
However, no systemic toxicity was observed at doses up to 750 mg/kg/day
in a 4-generation reproductive study with benzoic acid. In addition, no
systemic toxicity was observed in the laboratory animals at high doses
>2,000 mg/kg/day of potassium benzoate and benzoates indicating
relatively low hazard potential. There was no evidence of clinical
signs of neurotoxicity, therefore, a developmental neurotoxicity study
is not required. In addition, no evidence of immunotoxicity is
available in the database, therefore, an immunotoxicity study is not
required. In terms of hazard, there are low concerns and low residual
uncertainties regarding prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity. Based on
this information, there is no concern at this time for increased
sensitivity to infants and children to potassium benzoate when used as
an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations and a safety factor
analysis has not been used to assess risk. For the same reason, EPA has
determined that an additional safety factor is not needed to protect
the safety of infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Given the lack of concern for hazard posed by potassium benzoate,
EPA concludes that there are no dietary or aggregate dietary/non-
dietary risks of concern as a result of exposure to potassium benzoate
in food and water or from residential exposure. Residues of concern are
not anticipated for dietary exposure (food and drinking water) or for
residential exposure (dermal and inhalation) from the use of potassium
benzoate as an inert ingredient in pesticide products. As discussed in
this unit, EPA expects aggregate exposure to potassium benzoate to pose
no appreciable dietary risk given that the data show a lack of any
systemic toxicity at doses up to 2,000 mg/kg/day and a lack of any
apparent developmental effects.
    Taking into consideration all available information on potassium
benzoate, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm to any population subgroup, including infants and children,
will result from aggregate exposure to potassium benzoate under
reasonably foreseeable circumstances. Therefore, the establishment of
an exemption from tolerance under 40 CFR 180.910 for residues of
potassium benzoate when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations applied pre- and post-harvest and under 40 CFR 180.930 for
residues of potassium benzoate when used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations applied to animals, is safe under FFDCA section
408.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for potassium benzoate.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.910 and 40 CFR 180.930 for potassium
benzoate when used as an inert ingredient (preservative) in pesticide
formulations applied pre- and post-harvest and applied to animals.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. 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 to
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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 25, 2011.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.910, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following inert ingredients to read as follows:

Sec.  180.910  Inert ingredients used pre-harvest and post-harvest;
exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Potassium benzoate (as No. 582-   none..............  preservative
 25-2).

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  180.930, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following inert ingredients to read as follows:

Sec.  180.930  Inert ingredients applied to animals; exemptions from
the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Potassium benzoate (as No. 582-   none..............  preservative
 25-2).

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-5051 Filed 3-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 109-111]
[DOCID:fr03ja06-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

December 27, 2005.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-2001-000; ER99-3855-000; ER99-2928-000; ER99-
2300-000.
    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC; Cleco Evangeline LLC; Cleco Marketing
& Trading LLC.
    Description: Cleco Companies request an Extension of Time to Comply
with EQR for Q1, Q2, and Q3 2005 etc. to identify and correct errors.
    Filed Date: 12/16/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051216-5093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1086-003.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc submits the Coordination Agreement
with the New Brunswick System Operator Inc in compliance with FERC's
11/23/05 Letter Order.
    Filed Date: 12/16/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051221-0090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1362-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc
submits the Facilities Construction Agreement among Prairie State
Generator Co LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051219-0277.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1475-003.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits a supplemental informational filing to its 9/12/05 filing
proposing revisions to its Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets
Tariff etc.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051219-0293.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-53-001.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Alabama Power Co's compliance filing of the Delivery
Point Specification Sheet for the Utilities Board of the City of Foley
dba Riveria Utilities' Seminole and Point Clear delivery points etc.
    Filed Date: 12/16/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051220-0045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-195-001.
    Applicants: K Road BG Management LLC.
    Description: K Road BG Management, LLC submits an updated version
of Sheet No. 3 of the market based rate tariff to reflect minor
corrections.

    Filed Date: 12/16/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051221-0093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 03, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-327-000; OA06-2-000; ER06-328-000.
    Applicants: Hardee Power Partners Limited; Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Hardee Power Partners Limited submits the Seventh
Amendment dated 8/29/05 with Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc to the
agreement for sale and purchase of capacity and energy dated 7/27/89
etc.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051219-0257.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-330-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc on behalf of Entergy Arkansas,
Inc submits the Thirty-fifth Amendment to the Power Coordination,
Interchange and Transmission Service Agreement with Arkansas
Cooperative Corp.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051219-0291.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-331-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission and Energy
Markets Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume No.1.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051219-0290.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-332-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England, Inc submits a copy of State
Certification of the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications &
Energy designating all authorized persons to receive confidential
Market Information etc.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051219-0289.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-333-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp submits
Amendment No. 1 to the Interconnected Control Area Operating Agreement
between ISO and Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power
District.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051219-0337.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-335-000.
    Applicants: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.
    Description: New York State Electric & Gas Corp submits a Notice of
Cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 4.
    Filed Date: 12/15/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051219-0276.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, January 5, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-336-000.
    Applicants: Aquila, Inc.
    Description: Aquila, Inc on behalf of Aquila Networks-WPK et al.
submits revisions to its existing market-based sales tariff and cost-
based sales tariff etc.
    Filed Date: 12/16/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051220-0016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-337-000.
    Applicants: Midwest ISO.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits a notice of cancellation for its Service Agreement for Network
Integration Transmission Service, designated as Service Agreement No.
540 etc.
    Filed Date: 12/16/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051220-0010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-338-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Co of New Mexico submits required
ministerial changes to the pro forma Standard Large Generator
Interconnection Procedures & Standard Large Generator Interconnection
Agreement.
    Filed Date: 12/16/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051220-0011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-339-000.
    Applicants: Pacificorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits 1st Revised Sheet No. 292 to
PacifiCorp's 5th Revised Electric Tariff Volume No. 11.
    Filed Date: 12/16/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051220-0012.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-340-000.
    Applicants: Kentucky Power Company.
    Description: Kentucky Power Co submits a Cost-Based Formula Rate
Agreement for Full Requirements Electric Service with the City of
Vanceburg, Kentucky et al.
    Filed Date: 12/16/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051220-0013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-341-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Co submits revised rate
schedule sheets to First Revised Rate Schedules FERC No. 207 et al for
the Must Run Service Agreement with California Independent System
Operator Corp.
    Filed Date: 12/16/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051221-0031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-342-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc. et al.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc, on behalf of Entergy Gulf
States, Inc seeks acceptance of the EAI-EGS and EAI-EMI 2006 Bridge
Contracts.
    Filed Date: 12/16/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051221-0030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, January 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-352-000; ER05-375-000; ER02-1582-006; ER02-
2102-007; ER00-2885-008; ER01-2765-007.
    Applicants: CalBear Energy LP; Arroyo Energy LP; Mohawk River
Funding, IV, LLC; Utility Contract Funding LLC; Cedar Brakes I, LLC;
Cedar Brakes II, LLC.
    Description: CalBear Energy, LP et al submits a notice of
succession to notify FERC that as a result of a name change it has
succeeded to the market-based rate schedule of Arroyo Energy LP.
    Filed Date: 12/14/2005.
    Accession Number: 20051223-0011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 04, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other and the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-8189 Filed 12-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

MEMORANDUM

DATE:		August 10, 2010

SUBJECT:	Emission Factors for Existing Stationary SI RICE

FROM:	Bradley Nelson, EC/R, Inc.

TO:		Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

1.0	PURPOSE

	The purpose of this memorandum is to present the hazardous air
pollutants (HAP), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO)
and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission factors that were used for existing
stationary spark ignition (SI) reciprocating internal combustion engines
(RICE) in order to estimate impacts under the national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) that these engines are
subject to.

2.0	INTRODUCTION

EPA used information presented in the Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors (AP-42) to estimate HAP emission factors for 2-stroke
lean burn (2SLB), 4-stroke lean burn (4SLB), and 4-stroke rich burn
(4SRB) engines for the final NESHAP.  The trace organic compounds that
were defined by section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act as HAP were summed
for each engine type (i.e., 2SLB, 4SLB, 4SRB).  Based on comments
received during public comment interagency review period, EPA determined
that the AP-42 emission factors for HAP would be the most appropriate
and representative to estimate HAP emissions from existing SI engines.

For CO and NOx, EPA developed emission factors for existing stationary
SI engines using test data from the RICE Emissions Database and
supplemented this data, to the extent all information was available,
with emissions data received after the proposal.  The following sections
describe how EPA estimated HAP emission factors from AP-42 information
and CO and NOx emission factors from available emissions data.

3.0	METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING EMISSION FACTORS

	The following section describes the methodology used to develop
emission factors for existing SI engines.  These methodologies were
developed by EPA and used to calculate AP-42 emission factors.  These
methodologies include:

Data Collection and Review,

Data Evaluation and Analysis,

Emission Data Grouping,

Development of Emission Factors.

The data collection and review process included the collection of test
reports that were submitted during the comment period.  The pollutant
test data from the new test reports were added to the existing dataset
to create a revised pollutant data set.  The data evaluation step
included the review of the new test reports to verify that the data was
of proper quality and included the necessary quality assurance and
quality control data (QA/QC).  The emission data grouping step included
separating the data by engine type (2SLB, 4SLB, 4SRB) and pollutant.
The data sets were further grouped by facility and by engine model.  The
development of emission factors step involved averaging the pollutant
test runs for each engine model located at a facility.  The average
emission factors from each engine model at a facility were then averaged
to calculate the pollutant emission factor for that engine type.
Section 4.0 presents a summary of the results of the emission factor
development for each of the engine types.

4.0	EMISSION FACTORS

	The HAP emission factors for each of the engine types were calculated
using the Trace Organic Compound emission factors presented in the
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42).  The trace
organic compounds that were defined by section 112(b) of the Clean Air
Act as HAP were summed for each engine type (i.e., 2SLB, 4SLB, 4SRB).
The resulting engine type AP-42 HAP emission factor was then converted
from pounds per million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBtu) to pounds per
horsepower-hour (lb/HP-hr) using the following equation:

lb/HP-hr = lb/MMBtu * 0.002546 MMBtu/HP-hr/0.34

where 0.34 is the assumed efficiency for a SI engine.

	The VOC emission factor was calculated by dividing the HAP emission
factor in lb/HP-hr for each engine type by 0.194, which was the HAP/VOC
ratio that was established and used to estimate impacts under the New
Source Performance Standards for SI engines and NESHAP for stationary
RICE promulgated in 2008.

The CO and NOx test data from the RICE Emissions Database were used to
calculate CO and NOx emission factors for each engine type.  In
addition, CO test data received during the comment period was included
in the emission data set for 4SLB and 4SRB engines.  The CO and NOx
emission factors were calculated first by averaging the test data from
each engine model at a facility for each engine type.  The averages of
each of these engine models were then averaged to calculate a CO and NOx
emission factor for the engine type.  A summary of the test data and
calculations for the CO and NOX emission factors are presented in
Appendix A of this memorandum.

Table 1.  Summary of SI Engine Emission Factors

Engine Type	Emission Factor

(lb/HP-hr)

	HAP	VOC	CO	NOx

2SLB	5.96E-04	3.07E-03	1.06E-02	4.18E-02

4SLB	5.41E-04	2.78E-03	3.92E-03	1.15E-02

4SRB	2.43E-04	1.25E-03	1.93E-02	1.47E-02

Appendix A

2SLB, 4SLB, and 4SRB CO and NOX Test Data

Test Data used for 2SLB Engine CO Emission Factor Determination

Test Data used for 4SLB Engine CO Emission Factor Determination

Test Data used for 4SRB Engine CO Emission Factor Determination

Test Data used for 2SLB Engine NOX Emission Factor Determination

Test Data used for 4SLB Engine NOX Emission Factor Determination

Test Data used for 4SRB Engine NOX Emission Factor Determination

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Procedures For Preparing Emission
Factor Document, November 1997, EPA-454/R-95-015 REVISED.

 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I Stationary
Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition, Chapter 3: Stationary Internal
Combustion Sources, Section 3.2 Natural Gas-fired Reciprocating Engine,
August 2000.

(≤500 HP) Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE),
April 13, 2004 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0030-0009).

h

਀&䘋

 h×

 h×

 h×

 h×

h Proposed NSPS for Stationary SI ICE and NESHAP for Stationary RICE,
May 11, 2006 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0030-0059).

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  7

E C/R Incorporated	Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 325  (  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>  (  Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>


" Strong, Phyllis" < Phyllis. Strong@ state . mn. us>

08/ 14/ 03 05: 08 PM To: Steve Hitte/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Karen Brown/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Karen Blanchard/ RTP/ USEPA/ U Subject: Area So Here is a letter from the Region 5 Small Business Assistance Programs/ Small Business Ombudsmen concerning the area source Title 5 deferral. This letter contains information and concerns from these Region 5 programs for your consideration as you address this deferral issue. << title 5 deferral. doc>>

Phyllis Strong Small Business Assistance Program Phone ( 651) 282 5847, or ( 800) 657 3938 Fax ( 651) 297 8701 August 15, 2003 Mr. Steven J. Hitte C304 04 USEPA Mailroom Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Dear Mr. Hitte:

RE: Title V Deferral for 40 CFR Part 63 Subparts, M, N, O, T, X, and RRR This letter represents a compilation of the concerns and information from the Small Business Assistance Programs / Small Business Ombudsmen ( SBAP/ SBO) of EPA Region 5 in response to your request for information. These state programs are from Illinois ( IL), Indiana ( IN), Michigan ( MI), Minnesota ( MN), Ohio ( OH), and Wisconsin ( WI). It is the recommendation of the Region 5 SBAP/ SBO's that these area sources not be required to obtain a Title V permit.

From section 505( a) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA), " The Administrator may  . promulgate regulations to exempt one or more source categories ( in whole or in part) from the requirements of ( Title V) if the Administrator finds that compliance with such ( Title V) requirements is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such categories ."

In order for EPA to exempt area sources from Title V permitting, EPA must make a determination based on the above factors.

A possible justification to exempt a particular source category would be to document what states/ sources are doing to adequately assure compliance with the particular standard, and why that process is more practical, feasible, and less burdensome on the sources than the Title V permitting process.

SBAP/ SBO programs are in place as a result of Section 507 of the CAA which calls for the establishment of small business stationary source technical and environmental compliance assistance programs. All SBAP/ SBO programs have similar mandates and do similar work. Offering compliance assistance for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAPs) with area source Title V deferrals has been an underlying body of work for all SBAP/ SBO programs. Offering this assistance through site visits, phone consultations, workshops, mass mailings, and newsletters are common practices throughout all the SBAP/ SBO programs in the nation. This process is more practical, feasible, and less burdensome on these sources then the Title V permitting process. The EPA should take the work of all SBAP/ SBO programs into account when making decisions on area source permitting. Mr. Steven J. Hitte Page 2 Region 5 SBAP/ SBO programs have offered compliance assistance for the NESHAPs with area source Title V deferrals since the promulgation of these NESHAPs. Education and outreach opportunities offered to these sources are addressed in appendix 1 of this letter; examples of Region 5 work specific to particular NESHAPs are shown.

Other state SBAP/ SBO programs will have additional information on all the work that they do for these NESHAPs; any information you can get from them should be helpful to you. One tool that might assist you in your search for information can be found at the Small Business Environmental Home Page. The results of a national survey of these programs are posted here. The results show the types of approaches these programs used to offer compliance assistance. Go to www. smallbiz enviroweb. org/ multimedia/ multimedia. asp and click on search multimedia questions.

The foundation of a Title V permit is to clarify and consolidate the requirements for a source into one document. Additionally, the Title V permitting process requires public participation. Therefore, the Title V permit should be written such that a ` lay person' is able to comprehend the emissions, processes, and requirements of the source. The reality is that the Title V permit has become a bulky compilation of regulations written in legalese language according to environmental counsel. The greater part of the workload for Title V permit writers, company environmental staff, and EPA reviewers is trying to digest cumbersome regulatory language and attempting to apply it to a particular company. In many Title V programs, permit writers must cut and paste language directly from a rule into the permit in order to satisfy lawyers. The permit writers have no choice but to write permits that read like legal briefs. This does not reflect on the abilities or efforts of these writers, but reflects on the Title V permit itself. If the very staff that is responsible for writing, determining compliance, and enforcing these regulations find the Title V permit process to be complex and cumbersome, it is understandable that it would be even more complex and cumbersome for small businesses. Thus, it would be unreasonable to place this burden upon small businesses.

The Title V program is not designed for small businesses. Small businesses frequently do not have the expertise and resources to develop a Title V permit application, negotiate the applicable requirements with the regulatory agency, and then decipher a myriad of legal regulatory language as they attempt to demonstrate compliance.

Similar to a Title V permit, the NESHAP requirements are also filled with legal language. Therefore, subjecting a source to a Title V permitting process above and beyond the regulatory requirements within NESHAPs would only compound the compliance issue for small businesses. In fact, it could potentially trigger a decrease in compliance and eventually result in the shutdown of businesses. Many small business owners are not even attempting to see if they are in compliance with environmental regulations because these regulations have become so perplexing. Mr. Steven J. Hitte Page 3 It is not always necessary to require a Title V permit to gain environmental benefit. The NESHAPs themselves provide environmental benefit. Instead of complicating the process, look at what these small businesses really need to do to come into compliance with an applicable NESHAP. Let this be the true objective. In our discussions with small business owners, trade associations, and consultants, the common theme is ` just tell me what I need to do and I will do it.' We recommend that a program similar to Massachusetts' Environmental Results Program be utilized to provide a ` plain language' compliance document and audit checklist for each of the NESHAP standards. Providing documents and checklists that the small business owners can understand would help facilitate the goal of compliance. The resources that would be used to develop and implement the Title V process for these area sources would be directed to developing a plain language compliance assistance program that the small businesses can understand and embrace. State programs already have some of these tools available, making it easy for them to take this approach. For example, WI has an annual compliance calendar that dry cleaners must submit to the WI Department of Natural Resources ( WI DNR). If WI added a self audit / self certification style checklist to this annual calendar, submittals to the WI DNR would serve as a more complete method to monitor compliance. It is our belief that this approach would better serve the sources, and would probably show a good compliance rate as well.

The additional benefit of the Title V program is public participation. Any intent of the Title V program of increasing public participation has been lost by difficult to understand Title V permits. Regulators struggle with understanding the requirements of a NESHAP. How can we expect the general public to easily understand them? Replacing the cumbersome Title V permits with easy to understand compliance documents and audit checklists would increase the public awareness of a source's requirements. The design of the plain language format would allow the public to more easily determine the compliance status of the company.

It does not make sense to require these small operations to spend the time, money, and effort on a Title V permit. It will not improve compliance rates nor will it improve the environment in anyway. It will simply increase the paperwork burden on these businesses and dissuade future entrepreneurs from starting any of these types of businesses because they are so heavily regulated. The National Federation of Independent Businesses ( NFIB) Regulatory Impact Model could be used to show the costs and economic burden caused by permitting these thousands of small businesses. This type of information and the support of NFIB, Small Business Administration, International Fabricare Institute, etc. should be considered by EPA when weighing the exemption route for these sources.

The general theory is that permitting is the first step of accountability and enforcement. This may or may not be true. But it was the assumption made when the CAA was written to require Title V permits from all these sources. This could explain EPA's focus on compliance rates to determine whether or not Title V permits are needed.

It is good to look at the issue from a more holistic approach. Besides compliance rates, EPA should look at this issue with respect to environmental benefit. Mr. Steven J. Hitte Page 4 What environmental benefit is there for area sources to get a Title V permit when they are already subject to a NESHAP? Unless we decide to impose additional requirements in the permit, there does not appear to be any environmental benefit to issuing Title V permits to these sources. Absent any additional permit requirements ( which is not advocated), issuing a permit to these area sources would be a meaningless, but extremely burdensome, paper shuffle.

For these area sources, obtaining a permit would have little effect on their compliance status. The facilities that would normally be in compliance before permit issuance would be in compliance afterward. The facilities that would normally not be in compliance before permit issuance would probably not be in compliance after permit issuance. Regardless, the state regulatory agency and EPA have the ability to correct a noncompliance situation at these area sources whether or not they have been issued a permit. Issuing Title V permits to these area source facilities will not accomplish compliance; adding staff that can get to them with assistance will.

Compliance information for Region 5 is addressed in appendix 2. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has conducted enforcement work with area sources subject to these NESHAPs; lack of a permit did not stop this action. Illinois EPA ( IL EPA) also has conducted enforcement work with area sources subject to these NESHAPs. IL EPA proceeded with these enforcement actions, regardless of whether or not a permit was required. Enforcement work of NESHAPs can occur regardless of whether or not a facility has an air emissions permit. Since an affected source is required to notify the state regulatory agency and the U. S. EPA that they are affected by the NESHAP and must comply fully with the NESHAP, enforcement opportunities are available.

Focusing on environmental benefit with respect to the Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Equipment NESHAP consider the following information:

The MN Dept. of Revenue provided amounts of perchloroethylene ( perc) purchased on an annual basis since they began collecting fees on perc purchases for a dry cleaning clean up fund. This clean up fund has been put in place since the NESHAP became effective. Perc purchases show a marked decline; they have been more than cut in half since these fees began in July of 1995. See the data provided in Table 3.1 in Attachment 3.

MN's Small Business Environmental Improvement Loan Program has given low interest loans to drycleaners for the purchase of new equipment. Equipment purchased included state of the art refrigerated dry to dry perc machines, an aqueous machine, and a Green Earth ( a silicone based solvent) machine. See the data provided in Table 3.1 in Attachment 3. This loan program has been put in place since the NESHAP became effective.

MI data confirms what MN has found. MI has a Small Business Environmental Improvement Loan program similar to MN's and shows reductions in perc purchases as well. See the data provided in Table 3.2 in Attachment 3. The imposition of fees on perc purchases, the availability of better equipment, and the pollution prevention measures built into the NESHAP work together to reduce the amount of perc used.

In lieu of permitting these area sources as a means to ensure compliance with the NESHAPs, EPA should consider the State SBAP/ SBO programs as a means to provide compliance assistance to these sources. It is the network of SBAP/ SBO programs, and not the Title V program, that is equipped to address the needs of small business sources and provide them with the tools necessary to comply with the area source NESHAPs. These area sources should be exempted from the requirement to obtain a Title V permit.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this information for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Phyllis Strong Region 5 SBAP/ SBO Representative PS: ls Enclosures 1 Attachment 1 Education and Outreach Table 1.1 IL Source Education and Outreach Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Equipment NESHAP   The Illinois Small Business Environmental Assistance Program ( IL SBAP) has worked closely with the Illinois EPA ( IL EPA) in assisting the approximate 1600 perc dry cleaners in IL.   The IL EPA conducted a series of inspector training sessions for the Chicago Department of the Environment, Cook County and their own field staff. The IL EPA worked with the Illinois State Fabricare Association, the Korean Dry Cleaners Association and the IL SBAP to hold 34 workshops and seminars throughout the state in which 960 dry cleaners attended. Information booths were set up at various dry cleaning conventions and trade shows. Regulatory classes were conducted with industry participants.   State air permit application forms, compliance report forms, fact sheets and posters were developed and distributed by IL EPA and IL SBAP.   In 1997, the IL EPA and the IL SBAP surveyed 1370 of the perc dry cleaners including 200 of them over the phone concerning the outreach mentioned above. The survey results deemed that the majority of the assistance was both understandable and beneficial.   Both the IL EPA and the IL SBAP assisted in the development of regulatory guidance for the Dry Cleaner Environmental Response Trust Fund ( Fund) and the Illinois State Fabricare Association Star Program, an environmental management program. The IL SBAP provided regulatory information at 20 Fund workshops.   The IL SBAP has developed and distributed over 2000 dry cleaner record keeping calendars each year for the past four consecutive years to help dry cleaners meet the requirements of this NESHAP. These calendars are not only useful for perc dry cleaners, but can be used by all IL dry cleaning operations to meet their record keeping needs. The calendar includes information on ownership and name change forms, compliance reporting forms, updated regulatory information and other miscellaneous information including P2 tips.   Regulatory updates are published in the IL SBAP's Clean Air Clips, a quarterly newsletter mailed to small businesses and chambers of commerce.

Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing NESHAP The IL SBAP assisted in outreach to chromium electroplaters and anodizers concerning the NESHAP initial notification form and in obtaining air emission permits. The IL SBAP was involved with IL EPA's small business amnesty program, Clean Break, which included chromium electroplaters and anodizers.

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Equipment NESHAP The IL SBAP assisted in outreach to the 228 potentially impacted sources with the initial notification and with reminders concerning compliance dates. The IL SBAP assisted the IL EPA with the outreach to make sure the information was given in understandable format. They also worked with Detrex Corporation, Illinois Waste Management Research Center, and IL EPA on developing four workshops in spring of 1997 to discuss regulatory obligations and to offer assistance through the Clean Break amnesty program. IL SBAP will be working with IL EPA's compliance section on updating an annual reporting form to be potentially consolidated with a yearly reporting form already required of permitted sources.

Secondary Aluminum Production Facility NESHAP The IL SBAP assisted in the outreach with the initial notification and with follow up notifications since the rule change. The IL SBAP will assist IL EPA and Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium with notifications and development of tools for the training of Region V state environmental personnel concerning this rule. The IL SBAP will assist in the continued education of the 23 area sources identified as affected by the rule.

Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities The IL SBAP assisted one impacted company to obtain their temporary Title V permit application until U. S. EPA revised this NESHAP concerning the fumigation room discharge and other technical issues. 2 Table 1.2 MI Area Source Education and Outreach MI SBAP & MI Department of Environmental Quality 40 CFR 63 subpart N Chrome 40 CFR 63 subpart T Degreaser 40 CFR 63 subpart M Dry Cleaners 40 CFR 63 subpart RRR Secondary Al Q& A X X Fact Sheet X X X X Record keeping forms X X Reporting forms X X X Plain Language Guidebook X Teleconferences X X X Workshops X Table 1.3 MN Area Source Education and Outreach Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Equipment NESHAP MN SBAP has provided compliance support for this NESHAP by hosting a national satellite broadcast of training for this NESHAP, conducting 6 workshops around the state for compliance with this NESHAP, regularly staffing a booth and sometimes making presentations at annual meetings of the state dry cleaning trade association, developing a series of self evaluation checklists for drycleaners including a checklist addressing this NESHAP, developing a compliance calendar that addresses this NESHAP and distributing it to all dry cleaners in the state, and posting these checklists and calendar, NESHAP notification forms on an industry sector page on the internet that contains a direct link to the rule. To see an example of a checklist, go to www. pca. state. mn. us/ publications/ ea2 03. pdf and look at MN SBAP's Dry Cleaner Self Evaluation Checklist   Air Quality.

Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing NESHAP MN SBAP has provided compliance support for this NESHAP by hosting a national satellite broadcast of training for this NESHAP, and posting NESHAP notification forms on an industry sector page on the internet that contains a direct link to the rule.

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Equipment NESHAP MN SBAP has provided compliance support for this NESHAP by hosting a national satellite broadcast of training for this NESHAP, conducting 2 interactive video classes that linked sites across the state where one focused on the basics of the rule and the other focused on choices for compliance, and by posting NESHAP notification forms on an industry sector page on the internet that contains a direct link to the rule.

Secondary Aluminum Production Facility NESHAP MN SBAP assisted with sending the initial notification to sources potentially affected by this NESHAP and provided updates of changes through their small business newsletter. 3 Table 1.4 WI Area Source Education and Outreach Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Equipment NESHAP WI SBAP has provided the following compliance tools for these sources: multiple on site visits along with regulatory staff to provide multimedia assistance; periodically providing information booths and/ or making presentations at semi annual meetings of the Wisconsin Fabricare Institute; developing the compliance calendar addressing the NESHAP and other WI regulations and distributing to all licensed dry cleaners in the state; posting fact sheets and notification forms for the NESHAP on a program web page organized by industry sector.

Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing NESHAP WI SBAP has provided compliance tools for this NESHAP by way of posting fact sheets, example record keeping, monitoring and reporting forms, and notification forms for specific NESHAP requirements on a program web page organized by industry sector.

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Equipment NESHAP WI SBAP has provided compliance tools for this NESHAP by way of posting fact sheets and notification forms for specific NESHAP requirements on a program web page organized by industry sector.

Secondary Aluminum Production Facility NESHAP WI SBAP has provided the following compliance support for this NESHAP: mailing postcards to potentially affected sources to notify them of their compliance responsibilities prior to the compliance due date, and posting fact sheets and notification forms for specific NESHAP requirements on a program web page specific to new regulations. 1 Attachment 2 Compliance Table 2.1 IL Compliance Information Permitting Other than perc dry cleaners using less than 360 gallons of perc, most of these area sources have permits under IL's existing state operating permit program.

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Equipment NESHAP   The IL EPA has permitted, under their state program, perc dry cleaners that use over 360 gallons of perc each year.   The Dry Cleaner Environmental Response Trust Fund ( Fund) requires dry cleaners to demonstrate compliance with all applicable environmental laws and be enrolled in an environmental management program, such as the Illinois State Fabricare Association Star Program, to receive reimbursement for clean up activities.   A perc dry cleaner cannot purchase perc without being licensed through the Fund. In order to renew their license each year, the dry cleaners must provide a copy of the records required by this NESHAP, including their perc purchase receipts.   Most recently the IL SBAP compared the list of licensed perc cleaners from the Fund to those permitted at the IL EPA. Only eight sources were found that might need a state permit and did not have one. The rest that needed permits had them.   Approximately 600 dry cleaners were inspected by the City of Chicago and Cook County in fiscal year 2000. More than 200 dry cleaners volunteered for on site assistance during the Clean Break amnesty program. It was determined that most dry cleaners are in compliance with the core requirements of this NESHAP but had problems with the recordkeeping requirement. The dry cleaning calendar provided by IL SBAP helps resolve this issue.   The approach is to work closely with the dry cleaners prior to initiating formal enforcement action.

Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing NESHAP   All electroplaters, including chromium, are required to have a state permit with IL EPA. There are approximately 65 or more chrome electroplaters that are permitted at the present time.   Inspections have been performed on all or most chrome electroplaters.   IL EPA's small business amnesty program, Clean Break, included electroplaters. The most common compliance issue found during this program was platers operating without a permit and not knowing one was required. NESHAP requirements were not allowed under the " amnesty agreements".

Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Equipment NESHAP   All halogenated solvent cleaners, unless specifically exempted, are required to have a state permit with IL EPA.   Many of these sources have been inspected during routine inspections.

Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities   All ethylene oxide sterilizers are permitted with IL EPA.

  The five sources impacted by this NESHAP have been inspected. 2 Table 2.2 OH Compliance Information Reflecting the position of the Ohio SBAP and not the whole of Ohio EPA Ohio requires and issues both installation and operating permits for dry cleaners. There are approximately 1100 dry cleaners in the state, but not 100% of them are in the permit system currently. All Ohio dry cleaners need air permits for installation and operation. They are not exempted. Needing a Title V permit will transform the current operating permit process into something much harder for them to understand.

Ohio companies must submit Title V applications, annual fee emissions reports, and compliance certifications electronically using the state provided STARShip software. There is no option for hard copy submission. The Ohio EPA regularly provides STARShip training ($ 80 for companies, $ 195 for consultants, which includes 1.5 days hands on instruction at a computer, software, and user's manual). Small businesses will either invest the time and money into the training, or hire a trained consultant for much more money to prepare their Title V application for them. An estimate on how long it would take an average dry cleaner to submit a Title V application via STARShip or how much a consultant would charge for such a relatively simple Title V application is not available at this time.

Ohio's dry cleaning permits are lengthy and detailed, much like WI and MI programs. Ohio's State Implementation Plan and state laws require that all environmental requirements be specifically spelled out in individual permits. U. S. EPA requires that Ohio spell out all NESHAP requirements in permits. These requirements can not be incorporated by reference. This is a key requirement in Ohio's full delegation of NESHAP regulations. This causes the current permits to have a lot of " legalese". A Title V permit would probably not look any different.

Ohio EPA has traditionally had a pretty active inspection program. Current requirements are to inspect half of the Title V facilities and 20% of the synthetic minors/ FESOPs annually. There is still debate on the inspection frequency of non Title V facilities, non Title V NESHAP, etc. Some dry cleaners are inspected after being issued an installation permit. OH SBAP thinks that field offices have inspected a fairly large number of dry cleaners in the past 3 years. OH SBAP did not have any compliance data compiled and available. If dry cleaners are added to the Title V mix, that would more than double the amount of annual inspections required ( 375/ yr now vs. 935/ yr by just adding dry cleaners). Resources are not currently available to handle a doubling in work load.

Table 2.3 MI Compliance Information 40 CFR 63 NESHAP # of Area Sources Subpart Affected by NESHAP per Initial Notifications* M Perchloroethylene dry cleaning 912 N and T Chrome Electroplating & Anodizing and Halgenated Solvent Cleaning 166 O Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers 2 X Secondary Lead Smelters 0 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 3 * These MI Department of Environmental Quality numbers are from initial notifications and are questionable. Not all indicated whether the source was a major or area source; some may not have updated their notifications as to business closing, etc. 3 Table 2.4 MN Compliance Information*

* Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ( MPCA) does not have many compliance statistics on the submittals received. MPCA needs more compliance staff to fully track compliance vs. noncompliance. 40 CFR 63 NESHAP # of Area Sources Subpart Affected by NESHAP per Initial Notifications** M Perchloroethylene dry cleaning 315 N Chromium Electroplating & Anodizing 27 O Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers 1 T Halogenated Solvent Cleaning 25 X Secondary Lead Smelters 0 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 26 ** The numbers are from initial notifications and are questionable. Not all indicated whether the source was a major or area source; some may not have updated their notifications as to business closing, etc.

Table 2.5 WI Compliance Information*

* Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ( WI DNR) does not have many statistics on the submittals received. WI DNR data is lacking due to lack of staff to inspect so many sources. ( This is similar to the situation in MN.) 40 CFR 63 Subpart Compliance Information M Dry Cleaners are generally not inspected thus no compliance data is available.

N Around 65 75% of the chromium electroplaters and anodizers have been inspected since 1997 and around 35% of them have been found to be out of compliance. Also, approximately 1/ 3 of these sources have been issued permits. Those found out of compliance include sources both with and without permits.

O and T Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers and Halogenated Solvent Cleaners have been permitted as part of a larger facility with other emissions units. No effort has been made to specifically track these sources for compliance with the NESHAP. It would be necessary to review all permits and inspection reports from the time these NESHAPs were promulgated to develop tracking data on these source categories.

RRR Since the Secondary Aluminum MACT is so new, no data is available beyond contacts made with the WI SBAP. The WI SBAP has had discussions with a few sources regarding an affected unit and whether they expect to operate in compliance. The owners have either indicated they will shut down or install the appropriate control device, but no follow up has taken place to confirm those statements. 4 ttachment 3 Environmental Benefit able 3.1 Small Business Environmental Improvement Loans Awarded to Dry Cleaners in MN 1994  2003 Dry to Dry Machines 28 Aqueous Machines 4 Green Earth Machines 1 Total 33 Purchases of Perchloroethylene by Dry Cleaners in MN Dates Fiscal Year gallons/ year 7/ 1/ 95 6/ 30/ 96 1996 63,711.59 7/ 1/ 96 6/ 30/ 97 1997 67,646.80 7/ 1/ 97 6/ 30/ 98 1998 55,770.64 7/ 1/ 98 6/ 30/ 99 1999 42,582.24 7/ 1/ 99 6/ 30/ 00 2000 41,320.56 7/ 1/ 00 6/ 30/ 01 2001 35,264.68 7/ 1/ 01 6/ 30/ 02 2002 31,750.77 7/ 1/ 02 6/ 30/ 03 2003 28,399.09 able 3.2 Small Business Environmental Improvement Loans Awarded to Dry Cleaners in MI # Loans Perc reduced gal/ year Dry to Dry Machines 8 3955 Aqueous Machines 1 30 Green Earth Machines 1 360 Total 10 4354


[Federal Register: March 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 39)]
[Notices]
[Page 9275]
[DOCID:fr01mr10-122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

TIME AND DATE: March 11, 2010, 12 noon to 3 p.m., Eastern Standard
Time.

Place: This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested
person may call Mr. Avelino Gutierrez at<PHONE_NUMBER> to receive the
toll free number and pass code needed to participate in these meetings
by telephone.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on: February 19, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-4268 Filed 2-25-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P