[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 188 (Monday, September 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58266-58270]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23104]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 761

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0396; FRL-9917-21-OSWER]
RIN 2050-AG79

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Manufacturing (Import)
Exemption for the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
is taking final action on a petition from the United States Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA) to import foreign-manufactured polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). For purposes of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), ``manufacture'' is defined to include the import of chemical
substances into the customs territory of the United States. With
certain exceptions, section 6(e)(3) of TSCA bans the manufacture,
processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs. One of these
exceptions is TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B), which gives the EPA authority to
grant petitions to import PCBs into the customs territory of the United
States for a period of up to 12 months, provided the EPA can make
certain findings by rule. On April 23, 2013, the EPA received a
petition from DLA, a component of the United States Department of
Defense (DOD), to import PCBs that DOD currently owns in Japan for
disposal in the United States. The EPA is granting DLA's petition as of
October 1, 2014. This decision to grant the petition allows DLA to
``manufacture'' (i.e., import) certain PCBs for disposal. Without an
exemption granted by the EPA, DLA would not be allowed to import the
PCB waste to the U.S. for proper disposal.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0396. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, WJC
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The 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 RCRA
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Noggle, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, (MC:
5304P), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703-
347-8769; or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to the petitioner, the U.S. Defense Logistics
Agency. However, you may be potentially affected by this action if you
process, distribute in commerce, or dispose of the PCB waste imported
by DLA, i.e., you are an EPA-permitted PCB waste handler. Potentially
affected categories and entities include, but are not necessarily
limited to:
     Waste treatment and disposal (North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) code 5622), e.g., facilities that store
or dispose of PCB waste.
     Materials recovery facilities (NAICS code 56292), e.g.,
facilities that process and/or recycle metals.
     Public administration (NAICS code 92), e.g., the
petitioning agency (i.e., the DLA).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities potentially affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this section could also
be affected. The NAICS codes have been provided to assist you and
others in determining whether this action might apply to certain
entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by
this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions
in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 761. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.

II. Background

    Section 6(e)(3)(A) of TSCA prohibits the manufacture, which
includes the import of chemical substances into the customs territory
of the United States, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs,
except for the distribution in commerce of PCBs that were sold for
purposes other than resale before April 1, 1979. Section 6(e)(1) of
TSCA also authorizes the EPA to regulate the disposal of PCBs
consistent with the provisions in section 6(e)(2) and (3) of TSCA.
    Section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA, however, stipulates that any person may
petition the EPA Administrator for an exemption from the prohibition on
the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs. The
Administrator may by rule grant an exemption if the Administrator finds
that:
    (i) An unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment
would not result, and (ii) good faith efforts have been made to develop
a chemical substance which does not present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment and which may be substituted for
such polychlorinated biphenyl. (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3)(B)(i)-(ii)).
    The Administrator may prescribe terms and conditions for an
exemption and may grant an exemption for a period of not more than one
year from the date the petition is granted. In addition, section
6(e)(4) of TSCA requires that a rule under section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA
be promulgated in accordance with sections 6(c)(2), (3) and (4) of
TSCA, which provide for publication of a proposed rule, the opportunity
for written comments and an informal hearing, if requested, and
publication of a final rule.
    EPA's procedures for rulemaking under section 6 of TSCA are found
under 40 CFR part 750. This part includes Subpart B--Interim Procedural
Rules for Manufacturing Exemptions, which describes the required
content for manufacturing exemption petitions and the procedures that
the EPA follows in rulemaking regarding these petitions. These rules
are codified at 40 CFR 750.10 through 750.21.

III. Findings Necessary to Grant Petitions

A. No Unreasonable Risk Finding

    Before granting an exemption petition, section 6(e)(3)(B)(i) of
TSCA requires the Administrator to find that granting an exemption
would not result in an unreasonable risk of injury to health or to the
environment. The EPA expects a petitioner to demonstrate in its
petition that the activity will not pose an unreasonable risk. (See 40
CFR 750.11).
    To determine whether a risk is unreasonable, the EPA balances the
probability that harm will occur to health or to the environment
against the benefits to society from granting or denying each petition.
See generally, 15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(1). Specifically, the EPA considers
the following factors:
    1. Effects of PCBs on human health and the environment. In deciding
whether to grant an exemption, the EPA considers the magnitude of
exposure and the effects of PCBs on humans and the environment. The
following discussion summarizes EPA's assessment of these factors. A
more complete discussion of human health and environmental effects of
PCBs is provided in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for the
reassessment of PCB use authorizations in the Federal Register of April
7, 2010 (75 FR 17645) (Ref. 5). The Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological Profile for PCBs (2000) has also
provided a recent review of PCB human health and environmental effects
(Ref. 6).
    a. Health effects. The EPA has determined that PCBs cause
significant human health effects, including cancer (classified as a
probable human carcinogen), immune system suppression, liver damage,
skin irritation, and endocrine disruption. PCBs also exhibit
neurotoxicity, as well as reproductive and developmental toxicity. PCBs
are readily absorbed through the skin and are absorbed at even faster
rates when inhaled. Because PCBs are stored in animal fatty tissue,
humans are also exposed to PCBs through ingestion of animal products.
    b. Environmental effects. Certain PCB congeners are among the most
stable chemicals known, and decompose very slowly once they are
released into the environment. PCBs are absorbed and stored in the
fatty tissue of higher organisms as they bioaccumulate up the food
chain through invertebrates, fish, and mammals. Significantly,
bioaccumulated PCBs appear to be even more toxic than those found in
the ambient environment, since the more toxic PCB congeners are more
persistent and thus more likely to be retained. PCBs also have
reproductive and other toxic effects in aquatic organisms, birds, and
mammals.
    c. Risks. Toxicity and exposure are the two basic components of
risk. The EPA has concluded that exposure of humans or the environment
to PCBs may be significant, depending on such factors as the quantity
of PCBs involved in the exposure and the effect of exposure. Minimizing
exposure to PCBs should minimize potential risk. As shown through the
40 CFR part 761 regulations that detail proper disposal and storage
options, the EPA has previously determined that some activities,
including the disposal of PCBs in accordance with those regulations,
pose no unreasonable risks. Other activities, such as long-term storage
of PCB waste, are generally considered by the EPA to pose unreasonable
risks.
    2. Benefits and costs. The benefits to society of granting an
exemption vary, depending on the activity for which the exemption is
requested. The reasonably ascertainable costs of denying an exemption
also vary, depending on the individual petition. As discussed in
Section IV of this preamble, the EPA has taken benefits and costs into
consideration when evaluating this exemption petition.

B. Good Faith Efforts Finding

    Section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii) of TSCA requires the Administrator to find
that ``good faith efforts have been made to develop a chemical
substance which does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and which may be substituted for [PCBs].''
The EPA expects a petitioner to demonstrate in its petition how this
standard is met. (See 40 CFR 750.11.) The EPA considers several factors
in determining whether good faith efforts have been made. For each
petition, the EPA considers the kind of exemption the petitioner is
requesting. In each case, the burden is on the petitioner to show
specifically what was done to substitute non-PCB material for PCBs or
to show why it was not feasible to substitute non-PCBs for PCBs.
    To satisfy this finding for requests for an exemption to import
PCBs for disposal, a petitioner must show why such activities should
occur in the United States and what steps have been taken to develop a
substitute. While requiring a petitioner to demonstrate that good faith
efforts to develop a substitute for PCBs makes sense when dealing with
exemption petitions for traditional manufacture and distribution in
commerce, the issue of the development of substitute chemicals seems to
have little bearing on whether to grant a petition for exemption that
would allow the import into the United States for disposal of PCB
waste. However, because section 6(e)(3)(B) allows a petitioner to
request an exemption from any of the prohibitions listed in section
6(e)(3)(A), it is appropriate to apply the standard in a way that is
relevant to the particular exemption requested. Therefore, the relevant
``good faith'' issue for an exemption request to import PCBs for
disposal in the customs territory of the United States is whether the
disposal of the waste could and/or should occur outside the United
States.

IV. Final Disposition of This Exemption Petition

A. The Petition: April 23, 2013 Petition to Import PCBs Located in
Japan

    On April 23, 2013, DLA submitted a petition seeking a 1-year
exemption to import PCBs and PCB Items currently in storage at U.S.
military installations in Japan (Ref. 1). DLA estimates as much as
1,014,222 pounds of waste contaminated with PCBs could be generated in
Japan through calendar year 2014. The material in Japan consists of
transformers (drained and un-drained), large and small capacitors,
voltage regulators, switches, electromagnets, circuit breakers,
reclosers, electrical cable, electric light ballasts, used dielectric
fluids containing PCBs, and PCB-contaminated soil and debris (e.g.,
rags, small parts, packaging materials). Ninety four percent of the
waste is at PCB concentrations below 50 ppm. Details of the particular
amounts and concentrations DLA is petitioning to import can be found in
Attachment 1 of the DLA petition, which can be found in the docket to
this rulemaking. The EPA has concluded that import of the DLA PCBs will
not cause a shortage of domestic PCB storage or disposal capacity. In
addition, the EPA has concluded the amounts of PCBs available for
import are small in comparison to domestic generation, and pose little
threat of overwhelming domestic disposal capacity (Ref. 4).
1. Information Regarding No Unreasonable Risk Provided by the
Petitioner
    DLA will package, transport, treat, and dispose of these PCBs in
the same manner as PCBs identified in its previous petitions, which the
EPA granted in 2003 and 2007 to allow the import of up to 4,293,621 and
1,328,428

pounds of waste contaminated with PCBs, respectively (Ref. 2, 3).
Specifically, DLA notes its adherence to applicable modal and inter-
modal national and/or international packaging, marking, labeling and
shipping paper regulations, such as the United Nations Performance
Oriented Packaging (UNPOP) standards, the International Maritime
Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code/International Maritime Organization (IMO)
requirements, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
Technical Instructions, requirements of the International Air Transport
Association (IATA), United Nations (UN) Recommendations on the
Transport of Dangerous Goods Code, and provisions of the Hazardous
Materials Regulations at 49 CFR 100-199. DLA further notes that proper
handling and shipping will include blocking, bracing, over packing, and
inclusion of spill containment devices, as required by applicable
transportation regulations.
    DLA further indicates it will handle and dispose of all PCBs and
PCB Items in conformance with the PCB regulations at 40 CFR part 761.
DLA has considerable experience and expertise in awarding and
administering disposal contracts for PCBs and PCB Items in the U.S. and
will award contracts with commercial firms in accordance with all
applicable Federal procurement statutes and the Federal Acquisition
Regulations (FAR). DLA additionally notes only companies with the
required Federal and/or state-permits for the transportation, storage,
treatment and disposal of PCBs and PCB Items would be considered as
eligible for award of such contracts. DLA's exemption petition does not
request to limit the storage, treatment or disposal of PCBs and PCB
Items imported from Japan to management at a particular facility;
rather DLA requests any storage, treatment, or disposal facility that
has the appropriate Federal and/or state permits for PCBs and PCB Items
and for which DLA has entered a contract be allowed to manage these
materials.
    DLA notes that it and its contractors have extensive experience in
safely returning PCBs and PCB Items to the United States for treatment
and disposal, and that DLA has returned several million pounds of PCBs
and PCB Items for compliant disposal in the United States, including
3.6 million pounds of foreign-manufactured PCBs and PCB Items imported
under the two previously granted exemptions. As noted previously, DLA
had authority to import up to 5.5 million pounds of PCBs and PCB Items
under the previous two exemptions. Throughout the course of this
experience, DLA has used the same standards and procedures discussed
above without spills or safety problems affecting human health or the
environment.
2. Information Regarding Good Faith Efforts Provided by the Petitioner
    DLA states in its petition that disposal of its PCBs and PCB Items
in Japan is not an available disposal option. Specifically, as DLA
noted in its exemption request, there are significant impediments to
disposal on DOD military installations in Japan. For example, while
there may exist certain mobile technology capable of treating some of
the PCBs and PCB Items generated by United States military forces in
Japan, there are also significant impediments to obtaining the permits
that would be required to have that technology approved for use on
United States military installations, where residual wastes and metals
would still need to be taken off-installation for disposal.
Complicating the situation further is any transfer or sale of property
from the U.S. military installations into Japanese commerce is
considered an ``import'' of property. Japan has banned the importation
of PCBs and PCB Items at any detectable concentration, including
concentrations below the very stringent 0.5 ppm level at which Japan
regulates domestic PCBs. DLA's market research suggested a potential
option could exist for disposal of some limited waste streams in newly
permitted Japanese facilities (i.e., ``off- installation'' disposal).
However, DLA has not been able to identify any change in Japanese law
that would allow off-installation disposal in Japan nor the existence
of any properly permitted vendor or technology that would be currently
available to properly treat the DOD generated PCBs and PCB Items within
the confines of the United States installations in Japan. Accordingly,
on-site treatment does not present a reasonable alternative to the
import of these wastes for proper disposal in the United States in
compliance with the TSCA Section 6(e)(3).
    DLA further notes disposal of this waste in another country is not
a viable option. DLA cites its 1999 Report to Congress as background on
the difficulty it faces in finding suitable disposal alternatives for
PCBs and PCB Items generated or owned by DOD overseas. In particular,
DLA discusses the difficulty of shipping waste from Japan to other
countries as a result of the Basel Convention. Prior to its previous
petitions, DLA and its primary disposal contractor made extensive
contacts over a period of several years with Japanese officials and
disposal facilities in numerous locations outside the United States in
an effort to identify firms who could dispose of such PCBs and PCB
Items while satisfying the Basel Convention requirements. At that time,
the DOD also consulted at length with State Department officials in
Japan and in the United States whose responsibilities include
international environmental matters. The variety of problems identified
in these contacts regarding overseas disposal of certain PCB Items
resulted in a consensus that use of existing facilities in other
developed countries was not a reasonable alternative. Even if other
countries had the physical capacity to accept these wastes, non-
governmental organizations might be expected to oppose the DOD's
disposal of its waste in third countries (that is, countries other than
Japan and the United States) because the United States has the
technical capability to properly dispose of the hazardous materials
itself.
    DLA concludes that its diligent but so far unsuccessful attempts to
locate appropriate disposal sites outside the United States demonstrate
its good faith efforts to pursue alternatives to disposal within the
United States and fulfill the requirements of TSCA 6(e)(3)(B).

B. What comment did the EPA receive and how is it addressed?

    On April 2, 2014, the EPA published a direct final rule with an
accompanying proposed rule in the Federal Register (79 FR 18471). In
that rule, we noted if adverse comments or a request for an informal
hearing were received, then the EPA would publish a timely withdrawal
in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule would not
take effect based on the direct final rule. We also stated that we
would then address all public comments in any subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule which accompanied the direct final rule.
    During the public comment period, the EPA received one adverse
comment and request for informal hearing. The comment received states
in part, ``In brief, since the first two permissions were granted in
2003 and 2007, there have been alarming increases in previously rare
malignancies such as melanoma and liver carcinoma. Additionally even
common malignancies such as breast cancer have had substantial rises.
PCBs have also been linked to endocrine disorders such as diabetes and
obesity both of which have seen dramatic increasing trends'' (Docket
Document ID EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0396-0004). The comment did not include
specific information to support

the claim of increased numbers of cancers nor did the comment include
any support for the claim that this increase is due to PCB exposures.
    On June 13, 2014, the EPA published a withdrawal of the direct
final rule and notice of informal hearing (79 FR 33867). During the
informal hearing, held on July 8, 2014, the EPA received one
presentation, which was submitted by the same person who submitted the
adverse comment and request for an informal hearing. The presentation
included a request for the EPA to update EPA's classification of PCBs
from a probable human carcinogen to a known human carcinogen, as well
as included citations to studies purportedly indicating a connection
between certain types of cancers and PCBs (Docket Document ID EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2013-0396-0011). In the direct final rule for this action, as well
as re-stated in this final rule, the EPA recognizes cancer as a
possible health effect from exposure to PCBs. Therefore, neither
information in the comment nor in the presentation characterizes risks
of PCBs that were not previously considered by the EPA, and the
information does not change EPA's evaluation that granting this
exemption will not result in an unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment. Specifically, the additional research states cancer
has been associated with PCB exposure, and argues PCBs are causal for a
specific cancer (e.g., non-Hodgkin lymphoma), is insufficient to
demonstrate that proper disposal in accordance with our regulations
would result in an unreasonable risk. The PCB wastes under this
exemption must be properly disposed of according to the regulations set
forth in 40 CFR part 761.

C. EPA's Final Decision on the Petition: April 23, 2013 Petition; EPA
is Granting This Petition

    1. No unreasonable risk determination. The EPA finds generally that
the disposal of imported PCBs and PCB Items at an EPA-approved PCB
disposal facility poses no unreasonable risks as these facilities have
been approved on the basis of that standard. In addition, as with the
previous two petitions, the EPA concurs with DLA's assessment that
transportation of this waste will pose no unreasonable risk if
conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
Therefore, for the following reasons, the EPA finds there is no
unreasonable risk from importing the PCBs and PCB Items by DLA from
Japan to the United States for disposal, as outlined below.
    i. PCBs are hazardous and pose a potential risk to health and the
environment. Proper disposal in accordance with the 40 CFR part 761
regulations would reduce PCB-associated risks.
    ii. Risk results from a combination of exposure (likelihood,
magnitude and duration) and the probability of effects occurring under
the conditions of exposure. Because the probability of a transport
accident occurring is low (Ref. 4), the likelihood of exposure to PCBs
is commensurately low. Consequently, the probability of adverse effects
to human health or the environment is low.
    iii. The PCB-containing materials will be packaged in a manner
consistent with Federal, State, and local regulations addressing the
risks associated with the storage and transportation of hazardous
wastes. In addition, PCB waste will be continuously monitored during
the ocean transport from Japan to the United States. Contingency plans
are required by the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code and
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to be in place before and after
the import of PCB-containing items to the United States. Moreover, the
PCB Items that will be transported to the United States generally have
a low combustion likelihood, which will make the probability of fires
low. Together, these contingency measures will minimize exposure to
humans and the environment in the event of an accident or emergency
during ocean transport.
    iv. Given the aforementioned information, the exposure likelihood,
frequency, and duration are so low that even though PCBs are considered
to be highly hazardous, any risk resulting from the combined exposure
and hazard potential would not be unreasonable to human health or the
environment.
    v. The potential for human health risks are further mitigated by
the limited duration of potential exposure. Under the transport
scenario proposed, any exposures to humans (i.e., accidental or
emergency situation) would be of very short duration. Hence, the low
probability of exposure occurring combined with the short-term duration
of exposure, should one occur, further support a qualitative conclusion
that there is no unreasonable risk to human health.
    vi. The long-term concern is the potential for accumulation in the
ecological environment. Under a worst case scenario where all of the
PCBs were released due to an unforeseen and unlikely catastrophic event
during transport, PCB-exposed biological receptors could be adversely
affected. However, this scenario would require a failure of all
safeguards that will be in place. Furthermore, the alternative of
storing the PCBs indefinitely seems to pose more risk than transport.
Moreover, should an accident occur, emergency response authorities
would be invoked to mitigate and/or remediate exposures.
    2. Good faith efforts to find substitutes met. Section
6(e)(3)(B)(ii) of TSCA requires the Administrator to make an additional
finding, that ``good faith efforts have been made to develop a chemical
substance that does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and which may be substituted for such
polychlorinated biphenyl.'' The EPA has interpreted this provision to
require that a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that it has
made the requisite good faith efforts to identify alternatives to
management of the PCB waste in the United States. (See 40 CFR 750.11).
    The EPA finds that DLA has demonstrated good faith efforts to find
alternatives to disposal of this PCB waste in the United States. The
EPA acknowledges the restrictions to disposing of this waste in Japan.
DLA has also explored exporting this waste to other countries as an
alternative. However, DLA has indicated, and the EPA acknowledges, the
peculiar circumstances of DOD's PCBs and PCB Items, which, while
present in one country (i.e., Japan), are generated by another
country's government, leading to significant difficulty in providing
Basel Convention notification to third countries. Given these
difficulties, the EPA concurs with DLA's conclusion that disposal in a
third country (that is, countries other than Japan and the United
States) is not a viable alternative for this waste.
3. Benefits of Granting the Petition
    i. Avoiding the risks of long-term storage. The EPA believes
granting the petition to DLA to import 1,014,222 pounds of waste
contaminated with PCBs (94% of which is less than 50 ppm) will benefit
the United States and the environment in general. As DLA notes, the
continued long-term storage of PCB waste on U.S. military facilities in
Japan poses risks to U.S. personnel and the environment--risks that can
be eliminated through the action finalized in the petition.
    ii. Ensuring proper and safe disposal. Granting the petition allows
the United States to accept responsibility for the PCBs and PCB Items
it generates by assuring proper and safe disposal in domestic permitted
disposal facilities.
    iii. Ensuring the safety of Japanese citizens. The EPA considers
the reduction of risk to Japanese citizens to

be advantageous, especially in light of the heightened concerns over
PCBs in that country. Granting the petition is the only practical
mechanism to remove this waste from Japan; otherwise, the U.S. military
would be required to explain to its Japanese hosts that it cannot
remove its own toxic waste from their country because U.S. law does not
allow the waste to be sent to the United States.
    For all these reasons, the EPA finds DLA has satisfied the
exemption criteria of TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) and is granting the
petition.

V. References

    1. DOD, DLA. Petition from David Rodriguez, Director to EPA.
Subject: Petition to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency For an Exemption Under the Toxic Substances Control Act to
Import Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) and PCB Items for Disposal.
April 23, 2013. 19 pp.
    2. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Manufacturing (Import)
Exemption. Final Rule. Federal Register (72 FR 53152, September 18,
2007) (FRL-8143-4). Available on-line at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2007/09/18/E7-18345/polychlorinated-biphenyls-manufacturing-import-exemption, Document
ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0042-0008.
    3. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Manufacturing (Import)
Exemptions. Final Rule. Federal Register (68 FR 4934, January 31,
2003) (FRL-7288-6). Available on-line at http://www.federalregister.com/Browse/Document/usa/na/fr/2003/1/31/03-2344,
Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0013-0041.
    4. EPA, OPPT. Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Import for
Disposal. Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 11095, March 18, 1996)
(FRL-5354-8). Available on-line at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/1996/March/Day-18/pr-24122.txt.html.
    5. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reassessment of
Use Authorizations. Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal
Register (75 FR 17645, April 7, 2010). (FRL-8811-7). Available on-
line at http://www.regulations.gov, Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-
0757-0001.
    6. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Public Health Service,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (November
2000). Available online at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.pdf.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review. Because this action is not subject to notice and comment
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other
statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) or Sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1999 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does
not create new binding legal requirements that substantially and
directly affect Tribes under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). This action does not have significant Federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). 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). 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 action is subject to the Congressional
Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Under the
CRA, a ``major rule'' cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761

    Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, and Polychlorinated
biphenyls.

    Dated: September 19, 2014.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 761--POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) MANUFACTURING,
PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE, AND USE PROHIBITIONS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 761 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 2614, and 2616.

Subpart E--[Amended]

0
2. Section 761.80 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as
follows:

Sec.  761.80  Manufacturing, processing and distribution in commerce
exemptions.

* * * * *
    (j) The Administrator grants the United States Defense Logistics
Agency's April 23, 2013 petition for an exemption for 1 year beginning
on October 1, 2014, to import up to 1,014,222 pounds of PCBs and PCB
Items stored or in use in Japan as identified in its petition for
disposal.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-23104 Filed 9-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42818-42819]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0157, [Notice No. 13-10]]

SafetyAlert: Safety Alert: Risks Associated With Liquid Petroleum
(LP) Gas Odor Fade

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Safety Alert Notice.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing this safety alert to notify the public of the
risks associated with the under-odorization of Liquefied Petroleum
Gases (LPG). LPG is an odorless and colorless gas that under certain
conditions is required to be odorized for leak detection. The purpose
of this alert is to advise shippers and carriers of the recommended
procedures to ensure that LPG is properly odorized by all modes of
transportation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Betts, Director, (email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Delmer Billings, Senior Regulatory Advisor
(email: delmer.billings@dot.gov), Standards and Rulemaking Division,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington DC 20590.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA is aware of several incidents possibly
attributed to either the under-odorization or odorant fade of liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG). Most notable of these incidents is one that
happened in Norfolk, MA on July 30, 2010 where an explosion occurred at
a residential condominium complex that was under construction.
Emergency responders from 21 cities/towns deployed personnel to the
accident site. The accident resulted in seven injuries and one
fatality.
    The subsequent investigation raised questions as to whether there
was a sufficient level of odorant in the LPG contained in the on-site
storage tanks. In accordance with Federal and State laws and
regulations, LPG intended for use by non-industrial entities is
generally required to be odorized, or stenched, to enable the detection
of any unintended release or leak of the gas. LPG is highly flammable
and dangerous to inhale in large quantities. The added odorant is a
safety precaution that helps warn those in the area that a release of
gas has occurred. In the Norfolk incident, there appeared to be no
warning, i.e. odorant smell, prior to the explosion, that the on-site
LPG storage tank was leaking. PHMSA has consulted with stakeholders
from industry, fire fighter associations, and other regulatory agencies
in order to better understand the root cause of incidents like the one
in Norfolk. Although additional research may be necessary in order to
come to more definitive conclusions, PHMSA has identified situations in
which the risks of under-odorization or odor fade are more likely to
occur. These situations are outlined below along with recommendations
to mitigate potential risk factors that might lead to preventable
outcomes.
    Injection Process: On December 13, 2012, PHMSA met with
representatives from the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) to
gain a better understanding of the LPG odorization process. During this
meeting, representatives from the NPGA stated that the most common
method for the odorization of LPG is through an automated system.
However, the NPGA also noted there are situations where the odorization
process is manually performed. Preliminary investigations into the
Norfolk, MA incident suggest that the lack of sufficient odorization
rendered the LPG undetectable when the on-site storage tank began to
leak. In situations where the injection process is not fully automated,
the potential for human error may increase the possibility of under-
odorization. We believe that the insufficient level of odorant in the
LPG contained in the on-site storage tank involved in the Norfolk, MA
incident was likely a major contributing factor in restricting the
ability of on-site personnel to readily detect the leak. Therefore, in
this safety alert, PHMSA recommends that when the odorization of LPG is
being accomplished by a manual injection process, quality control
checks should be conducted to ensure that the requisite amount of
odorant is being injected. Additionally, PHMSA recommends that when
odorization of LPG is automatically injected, equipment calibration
checks should be periodically performed to ensure consistent injection
levels of the required odorant.
    New Tanks or Freshly Cleaned Tanks: During our meetings with
various stakeholders, several indicated that a phenomenon known as
``odor fade'' may be a problem when new or recently cleaned tanks are
used. New or recently cleaned tanks may absorb the odorant into the
metal shell of these tanks, thus limiting the effectiveness of the
remaining odorant in the LPG. Based on

this belief, we recommend that persons who receive new or recently
cleaned tanks be notified of this fact and that persons filling these
tanks implement appropriate quality control measures to ensure that
potential odorant fade is adequately addressed. Such quality control
measures will ensure that when delivered to end users, the LPG has
sufficient odorant to be detected should a leak occur.
    Odorization Standards: The odorization of LPG is addressed by a
myriad of Federal and State laws and regulations, as well as, by
accepted industry standards and practices. When offered and transported
in commerce, the HMR specifies that all LPG in cargo and portable tanks
be effectively odorized using either 1.0 pound of ethyl mercaptan, 1.0
pound of thiopane, or 1.4 pounds of amyl mercaptan per 10,000 gallons
of LPG, in the event of an unintended release or leak to indicate the
presence of gas. The HMR do not, however, require LPG to be ordorized
if odorization would be harmful in the use or further processing of the
LPG, or if odorization will serve no useful purpose as a warning agent
in such use or further processing. Essentially, this exception applies
to LPG being transported to industrial end-users.
    Although the HMR requires odorization of LPG in cargo tanks and
portable tanks, there are no such requirements in the HMR for rail tank
car tanks and cylinders. Therefore, in this safety alert, PHMSA
recommends that all LPG transported in rail tank car tanks or cylinders
be odorized in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  173.315(b)(1),
of the HMR, unless odorization would be harmful in the use or further
processing of the LPG, or if odorization will serve no useful purpose
as a warning agent in such use or further processing.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 12, 2013.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-17120 Filed 7-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


                                     Final
                             Supporting Statement
                                      for
                        Information Collection Request

          EPA's Light-Duty In-Use Vehicle Testing Program (Renewal)

                                EPA ICR 0222.09

                           OMB Control No: 2060-0086

                                December, 2010

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

Part A SUBMISSION

Section 1: Identification of the Information Collection

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection

	EPA's Light-Duty In-Use Vehicle Testing Program (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 0222.09, OMB Control Number 2060-0086.  This ICR was formerly titled "EPA's In-Use Vehicle and Engine Testing Programs." This renewal includes only the light-duty vehicle portion of the prior ICR. The heavy-duty and off-road vehicle and engine programs will henceforth be included in the OMB 2060-0287.

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

	The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division, conducts an integrated motor vehicle and engine emission compliance program.  Motor vehicles and engines are first evaluated as prototypes prior to production; those designs that meet applicable criteria are licensed for introduction into commerce.  EPA also has discretion to conduct assembly line testing of new vehicles and engines as well as to test emissions of in-use vehicles and engines.  This Information Collection Request covers inquiries directed at the owners/lessees of in-use light-duty motor vehicles to see if their specific vehicles are suitable for an EPA in-use testing investigation and the paperwork burdens attendant upon election to participate. The prior ICR had a light-duty vehicle component and a heavy-duty and nonroad component. This ICR renews only the light-duty portion.

	The light-duty program can be broken down into three closely-related headings. The first is the surveillance testing program, with the possibility of an add-on compliance testing phase. Only four compliance phases have been conducted in the last five years, but it remains an information collection in this request. The second is a small ongoing program testing the functioning of onboard diagnostics (OBD) systems on in-use vehicles, which is simply additional testing on a subset of vehicles already recruited for the surveillance program. Finally, budget permitting, there are other occasional one-time "special investigations" spot-check tests of vehicles to address specific issues. An example of a special investigation might be procurement of a class of vehicles to test compatibility with a particular portable emissions monitoring (PEM) unit. Special investigations are similar to testing of that portion of surveillance classes that has have been selected to address a specific informational need.  Because they use the same procurement system as the surveillance and OBD programs, these special investigations should be accounted for in this collection request, although the number of such tests will vary.

	Light-duty testing typically includes standard emissions test cycles and standard OBD tests performed at EPA's facility in Ann Arbor. The primary purpose of these programs is informational: to give EPA and manufacturer engineers intelligence regarding emissions performance for in-use vehicles. Manufacturers are involved at every step of the ongoing light-duty programs: they are informed of the surveillance tests, can be present during vehicle preparation and testing, are given test results, and participate in post-failure investigations. The testing supplements information from the manufacturers' own discretionary in-use testing programs as well as the mandatory reporting under the manufacturers' In-Use Vehicle Program (IUVP) under 40 CFR §§1845 - 1847.

	The light-duty program entails two formalized information collections. Participation in the information collections, as well as the vehicle evaluation, is strictly voluntary. (The actual solicitation of information is conducted by EPA's contractor, URS, at its Michigan Procurement Facility.)  First, 25 to 50 owners/lessees of the vehicles of interest who are located within about 70 miles of Ann Arbor are randomly selected from the owner list of vehicles obtained from the Michigan Secretary of State and sent a letter with a card and return envelope to accept or decline the invitation to  participate (Attachments II, III, and IV).  After a suitable time for response, all positive respondents are considered for inclusion and called in order from the list. If the owner/lessee is reached and willing, a telephone questionnaire is conducted that asks about a half-dozen questions concerning vehicle condition and maintenance (see Attachment V). The first three who successfully complete the telephone questionnaire provide the vehicles for the surveillance class. If there are any test failures in the first three, then two more are recruited in the same manner. Additional groups of potential participants will be contacted if necessary until the required three or five vehicles have been obtained.

	Information collected is used to insure that vehicles procured meet relevant criteria.  For example, the vehicle should not have been tampered with or have other overt problems.  Special testing investigations and particular vehicle types may have additional or alternative criteria.

	Those who elect to participate are asked if they are willing to bring in their maintenance records for copying when they deliver their vehicles. Doing so is voluntary and has no effect on eligibility. At the time of delivery, participants go over the telephone questionnaire answers and sign a notarized statement that the answers are correct. They sign for either URS's cash incentive or a loaner car agreement, and a URS test agreement. Upon delivering their vehicle, they sign a vehicle release.

	As part of the surveillance process, EPA attempts to determine the cause of any test failures. Post-test "special maintenance" involves close examination of the vehicle, nearly always with manufacturer participation. This may produce relevant information about the cause of the failure. Surveillance test data are also supplemented with information from manufacturer application test data, EPA confirmatory test rest results, defect reports, service bulletins, CARB  (California Air Resources Board) warranty reports, state Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) information, manufacturer service technician bulletins, and the results of the manufacturers' IUVP tests submitted to EPA and their own in-use testing results. Manufacturers/importers are involved in the process from the outset, and receive all test results, including test failures. The process of identifying problems is collaborative and cooperative in nearly all cases.  If EPA believes that a recall is indicated, and the manufacturer/importer agrees that EPA's conclusion is valid, it will agree to conduct a voluntary recall.  However, if questions remain, EPA has procedures in place to run the compliance test phase with continued manufacturer involvement. Even at this stage the inferences are informational rather than statistical: to identify, based on engineering judgment, the appropriate population to which the problem applies, identify the cause of the problem, resolve issues regarding the testing protocols and results, etc. The process has not been adversarial in recent years. There have only been four compliance classes in the last five years, and they were or are being amicably resolved.

	Based on information gathered from all sources, EPA can make an administrative finding mandating recall and repair of in-use vehicles if it determines that "a substantial number" of vehicles in a class or category do not comply with the emissions requirements as a result of its own in-use testing program. In reality, such a determination will be based on information from a variety of sources that may or may not include EPA in-use testing. Such findings are subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and are reviewable in court under the "substantial evidence" test (5 USC §706(2)(E)), which is restated in the "substantial evidence" standard in the Clean Air Act for ordering recalls.

	Procurement of light duty vehicles for a compliance testing phase is similar to that for the surveillance phase, except that EPA may make several attempts to contact an owner/lessee by telephone or mail; participants in the surveillance phase are screened out.

	In the last fiscal year an estimated 185 vehicle in-use testing actions were conducted by EPA, counting OBD add-ons as separate actions. Adding an allowance for about 25 special investigation vehicles (the number is expected to vary from year to year) and the possibility of a confirmatory class, the estimate here is 210 procured vehicle actions, corresponding to 3673 contacts and 164 telephone interview and/or other followup participant contacts. Assuming that 4,285 respondents spend an average of 7.3 minutes, this collection imposes a burden of 521 hours annually.  This collection has no respondent recordkeeping requirements.

Section 2: Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

	Under Title II of the Clean Air Act, (42 U.S.C. §7521 et seq.), manufacturers of motor vehicles and engines are required to design and build vehicles which will comply with emission standards throughout their useful lives.  ("Useful life" is defined by statute and regulation; it varies by type of vehicle or engine.)  Pursuant to section Clean Air Act section 207(c) (42 USC §7541, see Attachment I),  EPA is responsible for monitoring compliance and investigating possible noncompliance with  emission standards.

	In order to fulfill this function, it is necessary for EPA to test actual "in-use" vehicles; these vehicles must be obtained from their owners/lessees.  As part of the procurement process, EPA must determine that the vehicle is within the useful life and that it has been "properly maintained and used".  In order to do this, EPA must make a limited inquiry of the owner/lessees who are willing to participate; see Attachment V for an example telephone questionnaire.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	EPA needs the information from the vehicle owner/lessee to determine that the vehicle is within its "useful life" and that it has been "properly maintained and used."  EPA's Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, is the prime user of this information. Manufacturers whose models are being tested receive a copy of the file on the vehicle to be tested, identified by a "vehicle control number." Manufacturers are informed of pre-test maintenance and test dates and receive all test results. They also participate in post-test "special maintenance" to investigate failures.

Section 3:  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a)Nonduplication

	The information obtained from the vehicle owner/lessee is unique to that specific vehicle; it is not obtainable from any other source. There is no other information available, in either public or private databases, that will adequately serve the program purposes. (Some vehicle maintenance information, such as warranty repairs and scheduled maintenance done at dealers' outlets, is available from manufacturers and commercial automotive data services, and such information may be supplied by manufacturers in their own interests or as queried by EPA. However, it is not a substitute for owners'/lessees' own records.) Additionally, there are no other similar government programs which would allow sharing of data.

3(b) Public Notice Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	EPA solicited public comment by means of a Federal Register Notice published on August 25, 2010, 75 Federal Register 52326.  No comments were received.

3(c) Consultations

	In preparing this ICR, EPA consulted with Ms. Kim Cieslak and John White, URS Michigan Procurement Facility,<PHONE_NUMBER>.   (URS is EPA's contractor that procures and maintains in-use passenger cars and light duty trucks.)   Ms. Cieslak mails out the procurement letters and conducts the telephone interviews; she was asked to monitor how much time the interviews required.  She determined the average to be 20 minutes. John White is her supervisor. The two went over how the program operates from start to end.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	Information is collected only once per vehicle evaluation; less frequent collection is not possible.

3 (e) General Guidelines

	This information collection activity complies with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

3 (f) Confidentiality

 	Information gathered from light-duty respondents is stored in contractor files. These paper records, including names and social security numbers needed for those who accept payment over $600 in lieu of loaner cars, are completely segregated from test results, which are separately handled and stored by EPA. Respondent information is handled and stored exclusively by the contractors URS.  It is not available to the public. Non-personal information (such as maintenance record data) may occasionally be queried by EPA staff, who convey the request to URS, who in turn retrieve the information from respondent files and answer the EPA query.  Test results are tracked by vehicle control number and are shared with manufacturers by email automatically; they are available to the public.  This information collection has completed a Privacy Impact Assessment, which has been approved by EPA's privacy office. The system has been assigned System of Records EPA-60.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

	No sensitive questions are asked in this information collection.

Section 4. Respondents and Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/SIC & NAICS Codes

	The respondents are individual vehicle owners/lessees of any regulated vehicle or engine regulated by EPA under the Clean Air Act (No NAICS code).

4(b) Information Requested

(i) Data items

	Respondents who receive EPA's initial request (see Attachments II and III and IV) are asked to supply the following information on a card via a postage paid return envelope; participation is entirely voluntary:

      Do they own/lease the desired vehicle; verify the make and model
      Current odometer reading
      Are they the original owner/lessee
      Transmission type
      Are they interested in participating; how EPA should contact them.

	Those who indicate they wish to be considered for participation are asked for additional information:

      Has the odometer malfunctioned and, if so, for how long was it inoperative
      Has the vehicle catalyst ever been replaced
      Do they have maintenance records; would they allow EPA to review and copy them

	There are no recordkeeping requirements associated with this collection.

(ii) Respondent Activities

	Responses to the request for participation and information collection are strictly voluntary.

	Those wishing to participate are asked to fill out a postage-paid information card.  Some are then contacted by telephone to obtain the additional information listed above.  Vehicles that will be evaluated are brought to EPA's facility for testing. The owners/lessees receive either a cash incentive for each day EPA keeps the vehicle or a lesser cash incentive and a late model loaner car with a full tank of gas and unlimited mileage for the duration of the testing, which may take two to three weeks.

	Most of the information requested is known by the owner/lessee; some information might have to be obtained by simple vehicle or engine inspection or by reference to maintenance records (if available).

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

5(a) Agency Activities

	Agency staff typically has no involvement in gathering the information, as that task is done by an EPA contractor.   However, on occasion, staff is required to answer specific questions that arise during the information gathering process. Agency staff does review the final telephone questionnaire for completeness as well as potential issues relevant to the vehicle being evaluated. Agency staff selects the vehicle class to be tested, view test results, and participate in discussions with manufacturers relating to the testing preparations and results.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

	Information is obtained via mailed responses and telephone interviews; it is stored on paper in a vehicle file.  The information is reviewed to see if the specific vehicle or engine meets the criteria for evaluation.  The file is typically maintained for five years and then destroyed

	Due to the limited amount of information collected and its very limited use, electronic storage and processing are not employed.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

	The information requested is completely voluntary and imposes no mandatory burden on any respondent. The information collected is the minimum necessary to assure that vehicles meet the criteria for evaluation.  Therefore, there can be no process which reduces the burden on small entities.

5(d) Collection Schedule

	Information is collected on a continuous basis.  The number of solicitations mailed out in a given time frame is a function of available test capacity and how difficult a particular vehicle type is to procure.

Section 6.Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

	As explained above, EPA's contractor estimated that each telephone interview takes approximately 20 minutes on average.  Subsequent information-related burdens for participants (such as reviewing and attesting to the telephone questionnaire answers and supplying maintenance records voluntarily) upon delivery of light-duty vehicles, is estimated at 40 minutes. We estimate that the initial contact burden (by postcard and letter) to averages 5 minutes.

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

(i) Estimating labor costs.

	There is no typical individual owner/lessee; they represent the average person who acquires or owns a vehicle or engine.  For this analysis we assume a cost of $21.68 per hour, based on the mean annual income for people 25 years and older in 1965, from the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2006 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new03_001.htm, accessed August 5, 2010). The annual labor cost is therefore $11,295.

(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

	This collection has no capital, operations or maintenance costs.

(iii) Start-up Costs

	This collection has no start-up costs.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden

	EPA uses contractor employees to collect essentially all the information covered by this information collection request. The most recent annual contractor costs for the light duty testing component was approximately $697,000 plus $70,000 for the OBD portion. An estimated 1.5 EPA employees oversee the programs at an annual cost of $150,000. The total estimated Agency cost is $917,000 per year.

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

	From the above discussion the following total burden and cost estimates can be calculated as presented below.

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

(i) Respondent Tally

Program
Vehicles/Engines
Initial Contacts
Burden @ 5 min ea.(min)
Participant Contacts
Burden @ 60 min ea (min)
LD Surveillance
                                                                            150
                                                                           3673
                                                                          18365
                                                                            150
                                                                           9000
LD Confirmatory
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
OBD Surveillance
                                                                             35
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
Special
                                                                             25
                                                                            612
                                                                           3061
                                                                             14
                                                                            840
Total
                                                                            210
                                                                           4285
                                                                          21426
                                                                            164
                                                                           9840
Total burden (hrs)

                                                                            521

There are no respondent operating, capital, or startup costs associated with this collection.

(ii) Agency tally

EMPLOYEES 	1.5 (directly involved in information collection)
COST    		$917,000

6(f) Reasons for change in burden

	The changes in burden, a decrease of 90 responses and 98 hours, are entirely due to separation of the heavy-duty and nonroad in-use testing programs into a separate ICR.

6(g) Burden Statement

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average less than 1 hour per response.   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 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 regulation are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0690, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.  The 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 (202) 566 - 1744. The telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used 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.  When 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, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0690 and OMB Control Number 2060-0086 in any correspondence.

	Attachment I

 	Legal Authority

42 USC 7541. - Compliance by vehicles and engines in actual use

*   *   *   *   *

(c) Nonconforming vehicles; plan for remedying nonconformity; instructions for
   maintenance and use; label or tag

Effective with respect to vehicles and engines manufactured during model years beginning more than 60 days after December 31, 1970 -

(1) If the Administrator determines that a substantial number of any class or category of vehicles or engines, although properly maintained and used, do not conform to the regulations prescribed under section 7521 of this title, when in actual use throughout their useful life (as determined under section 7521(d) of this title), he shall immediately notify the manufacturer thereof of such nonconformity, and he shall require the manufacturer to submit a plan for remedying the nonconformity of the vehicles or engines with respect to which such notification is given. The plan shall provide that the nonconformity of any such vehicles or engines which are properly used and maintained will be remedied at the expense of the manufacturer. If the manufacturer disagrees with such determination of nonconformity and so advises the Administrator, the        Administrator shall afford the manufacturer and other interested persons an opportunity to present their views and evidence in support thereof at a public hearing. Unless, as a result of such hearing the Administrator withdraws such determination of nonconformity, he shall, within 60 days after the completion of such hearing, order the manufacturer to provide prompt notification of such nonconformity in accordance with paragraph (2).

*   *   *   *   *

	Attachment II

	Sample Solicitation Letter (EPA)

Dear Vehicle Owner:

      The Environmental Protection Agency and URS (under contract to EPA) are conducting an important program to help control air pollution, which involves analyzing vehicle exhaust emissions.  You may be able to contribute significantly toward this program and be rewarded for your cooperation.  If your vehicle qualifies, we will offer you a number of incentives to participate:

 The use of a late-model, fully insured loaner car with a full tank of fuel, and $20.00 per day.

      2.	If you do not wish to use the loaner vehicle, you will receive $50.00 per day.

Your vehicle will be returned with a full tank of fuel.

The testing will be conducted in EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (formerly known as the Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory) in Ann Arbor.  Your vehicle will probably accumulate less than 300 miles under simulated driving conditions.  No unusual operations will be performed on your vehicle and it will be fully insured for the entire test period, which will take approximately one to four weeks.

      Please complete and return the enclosed reply card in the prepaid envelope to URS as soon as possible, even if you choose not to participate.  If you are willing to participate, a representative of URS will be in touch with you to ask questions about your vehicle.

      The enclosed information sheet answers some questions people often ask about this program.  If you want to participate in this program or have any additional questions, please feel free to call URS toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Some is available between 8 AM and 4 PM or leave a message for a return call.  You can also call me at<PHONE_NUMBER>.  I will be happy to answer any questions you may have related to this program.  We look forward to receiving your reply card or a telephone call very soon.

                                  Sincerely,

                                 Lynn Sohacki
                            Environmental Engineer
                 Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division
                    EPA Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory
                              2565 Plymouth Road
                              Ann Arbor, MI 48105

	Attachment III

	Sample Solicitation Letter (EPA's Contractor)

Dear Vehicle Owner:

EG&G Inc. is under contract with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to obtain privately owned vehicles for the test program explained in the enclosed message and to perform routine maintenance and inspection procedures on the selected candidate vehicles.

Additionally, it is our responsibility to provide you with the incentives which have been authorized by the Environmental Protection Agency.

We hope you will join us in this important project.  Please complete and return the enclosed card in the prepaid envelope.

If you have any questions, an unlisted telephone number, or if it may be difficult to reach you by telephone, we would appreciate your calling us toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Sincerely,

John H. White
Program Manager

                                 Attachment IV

	Example Return Card

          ATTACHMENT 5: TELEPHONE QUESTIONNAIRE               OMB No. 2060-0086

VEHICLE CONTROL NUMBER                                              DATE

ADMINISTERED BY

OWNER'S NAME

STREET ADDRESS

CITY                                                         STATE            ZIP

(CALL NUMBER BELOW THAT IS MARKED WITH AN "X")

TELEPHONE (Home)  /           /            (Business) /          /

BEST TIME TO CALL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Privacy Act Statement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Authority:  Title 42, United States Code Section 754
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Purpose:  The information on the Questionnaire, and your maintenance records if you provide them, will be used to help determine the emissions performance of vehicles and their effect on air quality. If you qualify for a cash incentive of $600 or more, EPA will ask for your social security number to report the payment to the IRS on Form 1099.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Routine Uses: The information will be used by EPA for the purposes set forth above. If you approve, your questionnaire and voluntarily provided maintenance records will be shared with the manufacturer. Your social security number will be reported to the IRS on Form 1099 for payments of $600 or more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Mandatory or voluntary disclosure and the effects on the individual of not providing information: Answering the Questionnaire and providing maintenance records is voluntary. Failure to disclose the personal information requested on the Questionnaire or provide maintenance records may preclude your participation in this voluntary testing program. Disclosure of your social security number is mandatory to receive payment of $600 or more. If you are not willing to provide your social security number, you can not receive $600 or more for your participation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE OF CONTACT _______________________ TIME OF CONTACT  __________________

INDIVIDUAL CONTACTED_______________________________________________________

TO BE COMPLETED ___________________ DATE AND TIME OF COMPLETION___________

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.  Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-223, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40l M St., S.W., Washington, DC. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC. 20503.

You have been selected from a list of vehicle owners living in the Detroit/Ann Ann Arbor metropolitan area to participate in a study of vehicle emissions being conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA is authorized by law to conduct this study and to offer incentives to you for your cooperation should you decide to participate.  Your participation in this program is strictly voluntary.

The accuracy of the information that you provide is important.  The information that you provide will be used by EPA along with emission results from your vehicle to determine whether the automobile manufacturer has complied with clean air standards established by Congress.  The test results from your vehicle will not be used by EPA to take action against you.  Your cooperation will help EPA's efforts to control air pollution due to motor vehicle emissions.

These are the conditions of the program:

- we ask that you bring or allow us to pick up and deliver your vehicle into our testing facility. You will receive either a cash incentive for each day we keep your vehicle or cash incentive plus a late model loaner car which will have a full tank of gas and unlimited mileage.  This vehicle is yours to use without charge for the duration of the testing, which may take approximately 2 to 3 weeks.  During this time, we will be performing a series of tests on your vehicle to measure vehicle emissions.

At the time the vehicle is delivered to us for testing, you will be required to sign an affidavit stating that the answers to the questions you will be asked are true and accurate to the best of your knowledge.

We will provide you the following incentives for participating in our program:

- If your vehicle is accepted into the program, a full tank of gas and a cash incentive will be awarded. You will receive $20 per day for each day your vehicle is at NVFEL, and the use of a fully-insured loan car; or $50 per day for every day your vehicle is at NVFEL in lieu of a loan car.
However, if your vehicle is rejected after you bring it to the lab, but before you leave, you will receive a $20 payment.

The compensation will be based on whole days, beginning with the day your vehicle arrives, and ending one day after you are notified your vehicle is ready for return.

The maintenance performed on your vehicle will depend on program requirements.
You will be given a list of any parts that are replaced.

Are you willing to participate?  YES       NO

If you are not, may we ask why not? ______________________________________________

                            FOR URS PERSONNEL ONLY
          SENTENCES IN CAPITAL LETTERS ARE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK
                 AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE READ TO THE OWNER.

IF RESPONSE IS POSITIVE:

For the purpose of this study, I am going to ask you some questions about your vehicle's maintenance and usage history.  Please have your maintenance records in front of you for reference during the following questions.  You should answer these questions to the best of your knowledge and indicate when you are not sure of something.

1.  a. What is the engine family of your vehicle?  The engine family can be found on a Vehicle Emission Control Information decal located underside of the hood.  The engine family should start with:

   /  /  Owner is unable to locate.

   /  /  Owner located.  EF# ________________________________________

   /  /  Engine family located when vehicle arrived at the Lab.

   ENGINE FAMILY

   Engine Family must be =  (will be filled in by Task Officer)

   b. 	What is the vehicle identification number?  _______________________

   c.	What is the model of your vehicle?  _________________

   d. 	What kind of transmission does your vehicle have?: AUTOMATIC   MANUAL   OTHER
   	   If other, describe:_________________________________________________________

   e.	Is your vehicle air conditioned?  YES   NO

   f.	What mileage is indicated on your odometer? ____________________

	Has the odometer ever not functioned properly?    YES      NO

   	If yes, approximately how long (months/miles) was it inoperable? 	________________
   CONSULT EPA FOR ELIGIBILITY IF THE RESPONSE IS "YES" to f.

2. Has your vehicle's catalyst ever been replaced or removed?

   YES /  /        NO /  /

   If yes, CALL EO.

3. a) Have you kept records of the maintenance and repairs performed on your vehicle?

   YES /  /      NO /  /

b) To prepare for testing, the glove box and trunk will need to be opened  by URS and EPA personnel. Frequently, records pertaining to the vehicle's maintenance history are found in the vehicle. Will you allow all records (those provided by you and those found) to be reviewed and duplicated?

   YES /  /      NO /  /

4. EPA needs to share your maintenance records as well as this questionnaire and the test results with the manufacturer to correctly test the vehicle.  Do you agree to this?

   YES /  /      NO /  /

     IF RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE, INFORM OWNER THAT: It is important that they are brought to the lab for review and duplication.

5. Have you ever used any fuel other than that recommended by the manufacturer in your vehicle?
		YES /  /   NO /  /

If Yes, what have you used? ___________________________________________________________

How often have you used it? ___________________________________________________________

   When was the last time you used it?______________________________________________________

6.  Has your vehicle:

	a) Been in an accident? 			YES /  /   NO /  /
	b) Had any engine repairs?			YES /  /   NO /  /
	c) Any vehicle modifications?		YES /  /   NO /  /
   If "yes" to any of the above, please describe:                                                                                ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Has your vehicle had any:					           DATE:
	d) Body work?				YES /  /   NO /  /	 ________________
	e) Glass repair or replacement?	YES /  /   NO /  /	 ________________
	f) Paintwork or detailing?  		YES /  /   NO /  /	 ________________
	g) Other?                      YES /  /   NO /  /  _________________

   If "yes" to d  -  g above, please describe:                                                                                ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

   IF "YES" TO ANY d) THROUGH  f) ABOVE AND DATE IS LESS THAN 6 MONTHS FROM THE TIME OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, THIS VEHICLE SHOULD BE PUT ON HOLD.

   g) New tires?				YES /  /   NO /  /

   Date and mileage of the most recent tire installed?  Date_________   Mileage___________

   HAS IT BEEN LESS THAN 6 MONTHS AND/OR 6,000 MILES SINCE A TIRE REPLACEMENT?  IF YES, THIS VEHICLE SHOULD BE PUT ON HOLD.

   If a replacement part was installed, was it an original manufacturer part? Yes  No

   What was the approximate cost of the work done?

   Do you have any documentation of the work that was done?

   (NOTE TO URS: IF THE ANSWER TO ANY OF QUESTIONS a) THRU g) IS "YES", PLEASE CONSULT WITH EPA STAFF BEFORE ACCEPTING THIS VEHICLE.)

7.  Is your vehicle equipped with a trailer hitch ?    Yes ____ No ____

	Was the hitch installed by:   dealer   other

   How much total weight has been hauled?:

   trailer + cargo = _____________________________________________

   ( IF YES, CONSULT WITH EPA STAFF BEFORE ACCEPTING THIS VEHICLE.)

INFORM THE OWNER THAT:
 All valuables should be removed from the vehicle (including those in the glove box) prior to bringing the vehicle to the lab.


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		November 24, 2014

TO:		Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Region 7, EPA

SUBJECT:	September 25, 2014, Meeting Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      Karl Brooks and Amy Bhesania of EPA gave a summary presentation on September 25, 2014, for a Weather and Climate Class at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.  The majority of the presentation centered on highlighting the four major building blocks in the Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.        ATTENDEES

EPA Region 7: Karl Brooks Amy Bhesania

Other Attendees included students enrolled in the Weather and Climate Class - attendee list not available.