Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Vaping should not be banned, its helpful to people like myself who have used it to quitting cigarettes as its a safer alternative to traditional smoking. Without vaping I would still be smoking cigarettes. Classifying e-cigarettes as tobacco products would really ruin a lot of what makes vaping great and would hurt this useful industry.   A 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vaping industry and the wider vaping community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days.


Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 Memorandum To: Lynne Tudor, U. S. EPA From: Elizabeth Strange, Bob Raucher, Dave Cacela, Adrienne Grêt Regamey, Dave Mills, Marca Hagenstad, and Tom Ottem, Stratus Consulting Inc.

Date: 12/ 2/ 02 Subject: Analytical and Clerical Errors in the § 316( b) Phase II Case Study Document, Preamble, and Economic and Benefits Analysis 1. Introduction This memorandum provides a list of errors identified by Stratus Consulting in the April 2002 Case Study Document, Economic and Benefits Analysis ( EBA), and Preamble for the proposed § 316( b) Phase II rule. Where appropriate, we indicate the likely magnitude of the effect of the error on impingement and entrainment ( I& E) estimates and the benefits results.

Section 2 presents Case Study errors and Section 3 presents Preamble and EBA errors. These sections distinguish analytical and clerical errors. Analytical errors are errors in the calculation of I& E metrics or benefits estimates. Clerical errors result from document production. Such errors do not effect results, although they may cause confusion for readers.

2. Case Study Document 2.1 Analytical Errors 2.1.1 Calculation of Production Foregone The model used to estimate production foregone was incorrectly executed for certain cases. The error was systematic, but affected the results differently from case to case, and species to species, depending on peculiarities of individual I& E records for particular species in particular years. Specifically, the algorithm used to calculate production foregone performed correctly for cases where loss records for sequential sets of fish life stages were present, but gave incorrect results if certain life stages were absent from the loss records. We corrected the algorithm and recalculated benefits using corrected estimates of production foregone. The revised values, presented in Table 1, do not differ from the original values in most cases, but large differences appear for Seabrook ( Part F), Monroe ( Part I), and several Ohio River facilities ( Part C). Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 2 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 Table 1. Comparison of total economic damages at all case study facilities before and after changes in foregone production calculations.

Facility Total ( previous) Total ( revised) Change in economic impacts of I& E % change Lowa Average Higha Low Average High Low Average High Low Average High Salem $ 13,115,976$ 20,103,728 $ 27,091,480 $ 13,081,878 $ 20,086,679 $ 27,091,480 $ 4,098 $ 17,049 $ 0 0% 0% 0%

Brayton $ 169,907 $ 239,082 $ 308,257 $ 166,855 $ 237,556 $ 308,257 $ 3,052 $ 1,526 $ 0  2%  1% 0%

Seabrook $ 142,542 $ 228,338 $ 314,134 $ 138,557 $ 158,374 $ 178,191 $ 3,985 $ 69,964 $ 135,943  3%  31%  43%

Pilgrim $ 516,413 $ 632,817 $ 749,221 $ 494,527 $ 620,731 $ 746,934 $ 21,886 $ 12,087 $ 2,287  4%  2% 0%

Bigbend $ 7,040,178 $ 7,221,184 $ 7,402,190 $ 7,040,178 $ 7,221,184 $ 7,402,190 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0% 0% 0%

Contra Costa $ 844,716 $ 1,077,918 $ 1,311,119 $ 844,716 $ 1,077,918 $ 1,311,119 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0% 0% 0%

Pittsburg $ 2,056,045 $ 2,623,657 $ 3,191,268 $ 2,056,045 $ 2,623,657 $ 3,191,268 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 0% 0% 0%

J. R. Whitingb $ 270,726 $ 392,611 $ 514,496 $ 270,600 $ 392,548 $ 514,496 $ 126 $ 63 $ 0 0% 0% 0%

Monroe $ 800,839 $ 2,004,857 $ 3,208,875 $ 785,801 $ 1,215,344 $ 1,644,886 $ 15,037 $ 789,513 $ 1,563,989  2%  39%  49%

Beckjord $ 43,059 $ 168,202 $ 293,345 $ 28,648 $ 57,038 $ 85,427 $ 14,411 $ 111,164 $ 207,917  33%  66%  71%

Cardinal $ 7,161 $ 27,091 $ 47,021 $ 7,483 $ 27,252 $ 47,021 $ 322 $ 161 $ 0 4% 1% 0%

Clifty Creek $ 75,876 $ 222,185 $ 368,494 $ 20,504 $ 194,499 $ 368,494 $ 55,371 $ 27,686 $ 0  73%  12% 0%

Kammer $ 17,853 $ 34,580 $ 51,307 $ 3,104 $ 27,205 $ 51,307 $ 14,750 $ 7,375 $ 0  83%  21% 0%

Kyger $ 99,898 $ 211,325 $ 322,753 $ 93,224 $ 207,989 $ 322,753 $ 6,673 $ 3,337 $ 0  7%  2% 0%

Miami Fort $ 96,085 $ 191,604 $ 287,123 $ 25,769 $ 73,414 $ 121,059 $ 70,316 $ 118,190 $ 166,064  73%  62%  58%

P. Sporn $ 50,974 $ 67,504 $ 84,035 $ 14,250 $ 45,474 $ 76,698 $ 36,724 $ 22,030 $ 7,336  72%  33%  9%

Tanners $ 12,819 $ 32,032 $ 51,245 $ 12,409 $ 31,827 $ 51,245 $ 410 $ 205 $ 0  3%  1% 0%

WH Sammis $ 7,765 $ 40,640 $ 73,514 $ 8,778 $ 41,146 $ 73,514 $ 1,013 $ 507 $ 0 13% 1% 0%

a. Low and high economic values as reported in Chapter 4 of each case study in the Case Study Documents ( e. g., Table H4 14; Table I4 13).

b. I& E data from 1977 through 1978: before installation of the impingement deterrent net. Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 3 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 2.1.2 Part B: Delaware Chapter B3   Salem Baselines The I& E rates presented in Table B3 22 of Chapter B3 of the Delaware case study ( Part B of the Case Study Document) are for the Salem extrapolation baseline, not the baseline under current conditions as intended. The difference between these two baselines is explained in Section B3 3.4 of Chapter B3. As a result, the I& E rates reported in Table B3 22 for Salem and the regional total differ slightly from the intended values. The effect of this error was carried over to Page B3 41 of Chapter B3, and Figures B6 1 through B6 3 of Chapter B7. The corrected version of Table B3 22, including proper values for the Salem facility and the regional total, is provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Corrected version of Table B3 22 in Chapter B3 of Part B of the Case Study Document. Number of age 1 equivalents Fishery yield ( lb) Production foregone ( lb)

Salem 339,404,878 8,943,422 32,834,248 Hope Creek 12,220,152 322,005 1,453,133 DuPont 1,379,695 36,355 164,063 Edgemoor 154,131,600 4,061,415 18,328,226 Delaware City Refinery 71,744,121 1,890,479 8,531,297 Deepwater ( without Chamber Cogen) 20,616,580 543,253 2,451,576 Chambers Cogen 7,292,672 192,164 867,192 Gen Chem Corporation 6,681,664 176,064 794,536 Spi Polyols 985,496 25,968 117,188 Sun Refining 1,182,595 31,162 140,626 Logan Generating Co 394,198 10,387 46,875 Hay Road 315,359 8,310 37,500 Total 616,349,009 16,240,984 65,766,461 2.1.3 Part C: Ohio River Chapter C3   Section C3 9   Ohio River Poolwise Extrapolations The extrapolation of the primary I& E metrics ( age 1 equivalents, foregone fishery yield, and production foregone) from the Ohio River case study facilities to other in scope facilities was conducted on a poolwise basis. The extrapolated I& E rates and associated economic values for Markland Pool and Robert C. Byrd Pool are incorrect because of an error in computing the extrapolation scalars for those pools; these two pools included more than one model facility, and Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 4 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 the extrapolation was incorrectly based on the average flow rate among the model facilities rather than the total flow rates. The reported values are lower than the correct values for these two pools. Specifically, the correct values of aggregate losses in Markland Pool are 87% greater than the reported values, and correct values of aggregate losses in Robert C. Byrd Pool are 78% greater than the reported values. The extrapolations in other Ohio River pools were correct as originally reported.

2.1.4 Part D: Tampa Chapter D4   Table D4 5, and Corresponding Values in Tables D4 8, Table D4 9, and Comments on Page D4 7 The percentage of total pinfish harvest in the commercial fishery sector used in the calculations was 30 percent. However, the correct percentage is 3 percent. Therefore, the correct estimate of foregone commercial catch of pinfish in Table D4 5 is 13.1 lb ( rather than 131 lb) and the corresponding loss in commercial value is $ 41.80 ( rather than $ 418). The summary Tables D4 8 and D4 9, and the comments on Page D4 7, require corresponding adjustments.

2.1.5 Part F: Brayton Point Chapter F5   Section F5 7.2.2, F5 7.2.3 and Table F5 39 Section F5 7.2.2 develops an annualized cost for monitoring in tidal wetlands where the equipment cost is incorrectly treated as a recurring annual expense and the daily cost for the labor component of the monitoring is incorrectly used instead of the expected annual cost involving 5 days of labor.

The original paragraph in F5 7.2.2 states:

The sampling protocol suggests that one technician and two volunteers can provide the necessary labor. The estimated annual cost in the first year of monitoring is $ 1,600. This cost comprises $ 490 in labor for the three workers over 5 days ( 3 in August and 2 in the spring, with 8 hour days, $ 15 per hour for volunteers, and $ 30 per hour for the technician). The $ 1,100 in equipment costs includes two fyke nets at $ 500 each and two throw traps at $ 50 each ( Neckles and Dionne, 1999). The annualized equivalent of these monitoring costs is $ 1,146 and is applied as a per acre cost for monitoring in this HRC valuation.

Instead, the correct paragraph in F5 7.2.2 should read:

The sampling protocol suggests that one technician and two volunteers can provide the necessary labor. The estimated annual cost in the first year of monitoring is $ 2,500. This cost Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 5 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 comprises $ 490 in daily labor costs for the three workers over 5 days ( 3 in August and 2 in the spring, with 8 hour days, $ 15 per hour for volunteers, and $ 30 per hour for the technician). The $ 1,100 in equipment costs includes two fyke nets at $ 500 each and two throw traps at $ 50 each ( Neckles and Dionne, 1999). The annualized equivalent of these monitoring costs, treating the equipment costs as a one time expense in year one and the labor costs as a recurring expense over the 10 year monitoring period, is $ 1,847 and is applied as a per acre cost for monitoring in this HRC valuation.

The original paragraph in F5 7.2.3 states:

Combining the annualized per acre implementation and monitoring costs for tidal wetland restoration results in an annualized per acre cost for tidal wetland restoration of $ 7,904. This is equivalent to an annualized cost for tidal wetland restoration of $ 1.95 per m2 of restored tidal wetland ( 4,047 m2 = 1 acre) which is incorporated into this HRC for consistency with the estimates of increased fish production from tidal wetland restoration which are also expressed on a per m2 basis.

Instead, the correct paragraph in F5 7.2.3 should read:

Combining the annualized per acre implementation and monitoring costs for tidal wetland restoration results in an annualized per acre cost for tidal wetland restoration of $ 8,606. This is equivalent to an annualized cost for tidal wetland restoration of $ 2.13 per m2 of restored tidal wetland ( 4,047 m2 = 1 acre) which is incorporated into this HRC for consistency with the estimates of increased fish production from tidal wetland restoration which are also expressed on a per m2 basis.

The effect of incorporating these changes is an increase in the total annualized HRC estimate by $ 1,746,620 in Table F5 39 where the combined I& E loss is addressed. This additional cost represents 6.2% of the preferred existing best estimate of $ 28,206,491 presented in this table.

2.1.6 Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapters G4, G6 and G7 New Hampshire and Massachusetts recreational fishery values were treated in aggregate, and the average economic value of recreational fishery losses from the consumer surplus literature for New Hampshire and Massachusetts was presented. However, values for New Hampshire and Massachusetts should have been used separately to account for geographic differences. Changes in these values would only slightly affect the results presented in Chapters G4, G6, and G7, especially Tables G4 7 through G4 10, Table G4 23, Table G4 24, Figures G6 1 through G6 6, Table G6 1, and Table G6 2. Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 6 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 Chapter G5   Section G5 7.2.2 Section G5 7.2.2 develops an annualized cost for monitoring in tidal wetlands where the equipment cost is incorrectly treated as a recurring annual expense and the daily cost for the labor component of the monitoring is incorrectly used instead of the expected annual cost involving 5 days of labor.

The original paragraph in G5 7.2.2 states:

The sampling protocol suggests that one technician and two volunteers can provide the necessary labor. The estimated annual cost in the first year of monitoring is $ 1,600. This cost comprises $ 490 in labor for the three workers over 5 days ( 3 in August and 2 in the spring, with 8 hour days, $ 15 per hour for volunteers, and $ 30 per hour for the technician). The $ 1,100 in equipment costs includes two fyke nets at $ 500 each and two throw traps at $ 50 each ( Neckles and Dionne, 1999). The annualized equivalent of these monitoring costs is $ 1,146 and is applied as a per acre cost for monitoring in this HRC valuation.

Instead, the correct paragraph in G5 7.2.2 should read:

The sampling protocol suggests that one technician and two volunteers can provide the necessary labor. The estimated annual cost in the first year of monitoring is $ 2,500. This cost comprises $ 490 in daily labor costs for the three workers over 5 days ( 3 in August and 2 in the spring, with 8 hour days, $ 15 per hour for volunteers, and $ 30 per hour for the technician). The $ 1,100 in equipment costs includes two fyke nets at $ 500 each and two throw traps at $ 50 each ( Neckles and Dionne, 1999). The annualized equivalent of these monitoring costs, treating the equipment costs as a one time expense in year one and the labor costs as a recurring expense over the 10 year monitoring period, is $ 1,847 and is applied as a per acre cost for monitoring in this HRC valuation.

The original paragraph in G5 7.2.3 states:

Combining the annualized per acre implementation and monitoring costs for tidal wetland restoration results in an annualized per acre cost for tidal wetland restoration of $ 7,904. This is equivalent to an annualized cost for tidal wetland restoration of $ 1.95 per m2 of restored tidal wetland ( 4,047 m2 = 1 acre) which is incorporated into this HRC for consistency with the estimates of increased fish production from tidal wetland restoration which are also expressed on a per m2 basis. Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 7 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 Instead, the correct paragraph in G5 7.2.3 should read:

Combining the annualized per acre implementation and monitoring costs for tidal wetland restoration results in an annualized per acre cost for tidal wetland restoration of $ 8,606. This is equivalent to an annualized cost for tidal wetland restoration of $ 2.13 per m2 of restored tidal wetland ( 4,047 m2 = 1 acre) which is incorporated into this HRC for consistency with the estimates of increased fish production from tidal wetland restoration which are also expressed on a per m2 basis.

The combined impact of these changes it to increase the annualized per unit cost per m2of monitoring for tidal wetlands by $ 0.17. This would increase the estimated cost for compensating for combined I& E losses at Pilgrim by $ 413,068 ( 4.5% of the existing total of $ 9,233,362).

2.2 Clerical Errors 2.2.1 Rounding of I& E Rates In certain tables presented in the third chapter of each case study report (" Evaluation of I& E Data"), age 1 equivalents, foregone yield, and production foregone were reported as zero, while in other chapters the corresponding economic values were reported as greater than zero. This apparent discrepancy occurs because I& E results were rounded to the nearest integer in the I& E tables, and therefore values < 0.5 were not reported. However, the actual values were used in the benefits calculations, and therefore corresponding economic values are greater than zero.

2.2.2 Part A of the Case Study Document The statement " stage specific natural mortality rates for > 10 stages per species" is not applicable to all species because some species have fewer than 10 life stages. The number of modeled life stages varied by species depending on species life history characteristics.

There is a typographical error in Equation 7 of Chapter A5 of Part A of the Case Study Document. The correct equation is: Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 8 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 ( ) Y LSWFZ e k a j jk ja a a a Za =         ( ) 1 where:

Y k = foregone yield ( pounds) due to I& E losses in year k L jk = losses of individual fish of stage j in the year k S ja = cumulative survival fraction from stage j to age a W a = average weight ( pounds) of fish at age a F a = instantaneous annual fishing mortality rate for fish of age a Z a = instantaneous annual total mortality rate for fish of age a ( Equation 7)

2.2.3 Part B of the Case Study Document Chapter B3 Table B3 1 Silversides and blue crab are species designated as Representative Important Species ( RIS) by PSE& G. Therefore, they should be in bold font.

Table B3 3 and Table B3 12 The footnotes on Table B3 3 and Table B3 12 are misleading. Impinged fish were assumed to be age 1 only in cases when impinged fish were age > 1 or when ages were unknown. In cases where impinged fish were known to be younger than age 1, their known ages were used in determining the loss metrics, so the effect described in the footnote may not be apparent.

Page B3 27, Third Last paragraph " Tables B37..." should read " Tables B3 7..."

Appendix B1 Throughout Appendix B1, the table captions indicating "... 1978 1998" should read "... 1977 1998".

Chapter B4 Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 9 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 The values for pounds of foregone recreational yield reported in Tables B4 2 and B4 3 are incorrect. Correct values are provided in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. Correction for Table B4 2.

Species Corrected recreational yield ( lbs) Alewife 0 American shad 53 Atlantic croaker 4,720 Blue crab 598 Spot 382 Striped bass 8,040 Weakfish 13,613 White perch 31 Non RIS fishery species 5,013 Total 32,450 Table 4. Correction for Table B4 3.

Species Corrected recreational yield ( lbs) Alewife 0 American shad 10 Atlantic croaker 334,986 Atlantic menhaden 0 Silversides 0 Spot 480,776 Striped bass 564,789 Weakfish 296,243 White perch 224 Non RIS fishery species 322,383 Total 1,999,412 Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 10 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 2.2.4 Part C of the Case Study Document Chapter C3 Table C3 2 Table C3 2 indicates that impingement sampling at Clifty Creek was conducted only in 1977. In fact, impingement sampling was conducted in 1977 and in 1985 1986 ( EA Science and Technology, 1987). This error was carried over to Page C3 21, last paragraph of section C3 4 and the last paragraph of Page C7 1; the text indicating " for only a single year of sampling" should read " for only a single year of sampling, except at Clifty Creek, where impingement sampling was conducted in two years."

Table C3 9 Some of the column labels in Table C3 9 are misplaced. The correct labeling for Table C3 9 is provided in Table 5. The effect of this clerical error is limited to the presentation in this particular table; no subsequent reporting errors result from this error.

Table 5. Corrections to original labeling of Table C3 9. Original label Correct label longear sunfish logperch minnow sp. longear sunfish paddlefish muskellunge perch sp. paddlefish sauger river carpsucker skipjack herring sauger smallmouth bass skipjack herring striped bass smallmouth bass sucker spp. striped bass sunfish sp. sucker sp.

walleye sunfish sp.

white bass walleye yellow perch white bass Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 11 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 The data for yellow perch were omitted from the Table C3 9. The correct values for rows 1 10 of Table C3 9 representing yellow perch are 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 3, 1.

Pages C3 38 through C3 51, Tables C3 14 through C3 15 and C3 17 through C3 32 The pool designation " Newburgh Pool" should be " New Cumberland Pool."

Chapter C7 Page C7 1, Third Last Paragraph This paragraph states: ".... $ 1.7 million to $ 2.3 million per year for a 50% impingement reduction and $ 7.3 million to $ 7.8 million per year for a 10% reduction...." Instead, it should read: ".... $ 1.7 million to $ 2.3 million per year for a 50% impingement reduction and $ 9.0 million to $ 9.7 million per year for a 10% reduction..."

2.2.5 Part D of the Case Study Document Chapter D3 Page D3 25, Paragraph 5 The sentence states: Differences were less than 26 million age 1 equivalents per year except for bay anchovy. Instead it should read: Differences were less than 33 million age 1 equivalents per year except for bay anchovy Chapter D4 Tables D4 5 and D4 6 The third column label should be " Commercial Value/ lb" ( instead of " Commercial Value/ Fish").

Chapter D7 Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 12 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 Header says " Chapter F7" and should be " Chapter D7."

2.2.6 Part E of the Case Study Document Chapter E5 Tables E5 4 and E5 5 The captions of these tables are incomplete. They should indicate that the reported losses are expressed as age 1 equivalents.

Chapter E6 The I& E losses stated in Box 4 were switched. It should read: " I: 27,200 ( 11,600 lb) $ 474,000 E: 185,100 ( 79,000 lb) $ 3.2 million" The I& E losses stated in Box 5 were switched as well. It should read: " I: 145,000 $ 27 million E: 269,300 $ 50 million"

2.2.7 Part F of the Case Study Document Chapter F6 Figure F6 3 Numbers of age 1 equivalents should be 3.8 million per year for entrainment.

Figure F6 4 Numbers of age 1 equivalents should be 69,300 per year for impingement. Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 13 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 2.2.8 Part G of the Case Study Document Chapter G5 Table G5 1 Table G5 1 reports the number of blue mussel age 1 equivalents as 15. The correct value is 150.

Chapter G6 Figure G6 4 Figure G6 4 indicates HRC loss values of $ 840,000/ year associated with impingement, but the correct value is $ 0.5 million/ year. Figure G6 4 indicates HRC loss values of $ 12.3 million/ year associated with entrainment, but the correct value is $ 9.1 million/ year.

Page G6 5 Box 8 should read I: $ 0.5 million, E: $ 9.1 million.

Chapter G7 Page G7 1 The text on line 7 should read "... and over $ 9.1" ( instead of "$ 19.1").

2.2.9 Part I of the Case Study Document Chapter I4 The values for pounds of foregone recreational yield reported in Tables I4 2 through I4 3 are incorrect. Correct values are provided in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6. Correction for Table I4 2.

Species Corrected recreational yield ( lbs) Bluegill 0 Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 14 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 Bullhead spp. 0 Carp 0 Channel catfish 14 Crappie 7 Freshwater drum 0 Gizzard shad 0 Muskellunge 0 Smallmouth bass 6 Smelt 22 Suckers 0 Sunfish 2 Walleye 334 White bass 25,235 Yellow perch 282 Commercial and recreational species total 25,901 Table 7. Correction for Table I4 3.

Species Corrected recreational yield ( lbs) Burbot 103 Carp 0 Channel catfish 322 Crappie 195 Freshwater drum 0 Gizzard shad 0 Smallmouth bass 1,972 Smelt 383 Suckers 0 Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 15 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 Sunfish 113 Walleye 247 White bass 29,423 Whitefish 37 Yellow perch 605 Commercial and recreational species total 33,399 3. Preamble and EBA 3.1 Analytical Errors 3.1.1 Benefits of Option 6 were not reported in the Preamble The EBA reports benefits of a sixth option ( Option 6) that was added to the national benefits analysis after the Preamble was completed. The expected reductions in I& E and the economic benefits of Option 6 are reported in Chapter C4 of the EBA but not in the Preamble.

3.1.2 Preamble, Section VI. Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact at Phase II Existing Facilities The benefits estimates for the dry cooling option ( called Option 5 in the benefits analysis) have been updated.

The statement " annual benefits of $ 138.2 million for impingement reductions and $ 1.33 billion for entrainment reductions." should read " annual benefits of $ 143.9 million for impingement reductions and $ 1.39 billion for entrainment reductions."

3.1.3 Concurrence between scaling of national costs and benefits In the Preamble, the number of facilities represented in the national benefits estimates is fewer than the number of facilities represented in the national cost estimates. This discrepancy does not appear in the EBA. Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 16 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 The Preamble uses statistical weighting factors to extrapolate costs and benefits at model facilities to the national scale. The national cost estimates reported in the Preamble are correctly scaled to represent all 550 in scope facilities. However, the national benefit estimates reported in the Preamble ( Exhibits 25 34) were incorrectly scaled to represent only 539 in scope facilities. Therefore, the Preamble reports expected total baseline losses and benefits that are slightly less than the correct total. In contrast to the Preamble, the summary of costs and benefits presented in the EBA is consistently scaled to represent 550 facilities.

3.1.4 Omission of Seabrook from national extrapolation In the Preamble, the case study results from the Seabrook facility were incorrectly omitted from the totals reported in Exhibits 25 34. The extrapolation for Oceans reports the total of benefits among all in scope facilities except Seabrook. This results in a minor inaccuracy in the baseline loss and benefits estimates for oceans and for the total of all in scope facilities. In contrast to the Preamble, the analysis reported in the EBA ( Chapters C3 and C4 and Appendix C1) includes the Seabrook results.

3.1.5 Estimated percent reductions under the regulatory options Stratus Consulting still has some uncertainty about the exact definitions of the various regulatory options and their effects on I& E loss rates. Thus, the options as defined for the costs may not be the same as the options defined for the benefits. Clarification of this issue is needed to determine if there is an inconsistency that requires a re analysis.

3.2 Clerical Errors 3.2.1 EBA, Chapter C2  Table C2 1 Table C2 1 in Chapter C2 of the EBA reports incorrect values for impingement and associated dollar values because of a clerical error. The correct version of Table C2 1 is provided as Table 8.

Table 8. Corrected version of Table C2 1 of Chapter C2 of the EBA. Impingement Entrainment Four in scope facilities Age 1 equivalent fish lost > 7.5 million/ yr > 526.3 million/ yr # lbs lost to landed fishery > 268,800 lb/ yr > 13.8 million lb/ yr Stratus Consulting Memorandum Table 8. Corrected version of Table C2 1 of Chapter C2 of the EBA. Impingement Entrainment Page 17 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 $ value of loss ( 2001$) $ 0.50 million  $ 0.8 million/ yr $ 16.8 million  $ 30.5 million/ yr 3.2.2 EBA, Chapter C2  Section C2 2, page C2 3 second paragraph The sentence states: " EPA estimates that more than 450 million age 1 bay anchovy . . . ( over 85 percent of the total of over 526 million...)" Instead it should read: " EPA estimates that more than 500 million age 1 bay anchovy . . . ( over 75 percent of the total of over 633 million...)"

3.2.3 EBA, Chapter C4  Table C4 3 and C4 4 The information for Option 6 in Table C4 3 is incorrect. The percent reductions for Option 6 should be presented, not the dollar values. The correct column is:

Option 6 Estuary   Non Gulf 78.3%

Estuary   Gulf 78.3%

Freshwater 9.8%

Great Lake 57.8%

Ocean 72.8%

3.2.4 Preamble, Summary of Benefits Findings Due to clerical error, several of the exhibits in Part E, Summary of Benefits Findings: Case Studies, contain incorrect data. The correct values are reported in the EBA, Chapter C2.

Errors in Exhibits 13 22 are summarized and the corrected data are included in the following tables. Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 18 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 Exhibit 13 Preamble data were not updated to reflect most current estimates.

Table 9. Corrected Exhibit 13: Baseline impacts ( annual average) at four in scope facilities in transition zone of the Delaware Estuary. Impingement Entrainment Four in scope facilities Age 1 equivalent fish lost > 12.2 million/ yr > 526.3 million/ yr # lbs lost to landed fishery > 374,000 lb/ yr > 13.8 million lb/ yr $ value of loss ( 2001$) $ 0.50 million  $ 0.8 million/ yr $ 16.8 million  $ 30.5 million/ yr Exhibit 14 Preamble estimates of "# lbs lost to landed fishery" were not updated to reflect most current estimates.

Table 10. Corrected Exhibit 14: Baseline impacts ( annual average) in the Ohio River at in scope facilities. Impingement Entrainment 29 in scope facilities Age 1 equivalent fish lost > 11.3 million/ yr > 23.0 million/ yr # lbs lost to landed fishery > 14,900 lb/ yr > 39,000 lb/ yr $ value of loss ( 2001$) $ 3.5 million  $ 4.7 million/ yr $ 9.3 million  $ 9.9 million/ yr Exhibit 15 Preamble estimates of " Age 1 equivalent fish lost" and " Number of striped bass lost to recreational catch" were not updated to reflect most current estimates. Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 19 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 Table 11. Corrected Exhibit 15: Baseline impacts ( annual average) for special status fish species at two facilities in the San Francisco Bay/ Delta Impingement Entrainment Two in scope facilities Age 1 equivalent fish lost > 431,700/ yr > 2.2 million/ yr Number of striped bass lost to recreational catch 27,203 185,073 $ value of combined loss ( 2001$) $ 12.8 million  $ 43.2 million/ yr $ 25.6 million  $ 83.2 million/ yr Exhibit 16 Preamble estimates of " Age 1 equivalent fish lost" and "# lbs lost to landed fishery" were entered incorrectly and were not updated to reflect most current estimates.

Table 12. Corrected Exhibit 16: Baseline impacts ( annual average) for J. R. Whiting without net. Impingement Entrainment One Great Lakes facility Age 1 equivalent fish lost > 21.4 million/ yr > 1.8 million/ yr # lbs lost to landed fishery > 844,300 lb/ yr > 70,000lb/ yr $ value of loss ( 2001$) $ 0.4 million  $ 1.2 million/ yr $ 42,000  $ 1.7 million/ yr Exhibit 17 Preamble table title and estimates of " Age 1 equivalent fish lost" and "# lbs lost to landed fishery" were entered incorrectly and were not updated to reflect most current estimates.

Table 13. Corrected Exhibit 17: Baseline impacts ( annual average) for J. R. Whiting with net. Impingement Entrainment One Great Lakes facility Age 1 equivalent fish lost > 1.6 million/ yr NA # lbs lost to landed fishery > 62,700 lb/ yr NA $ value of loss ( 2001$) $ 29,000  $ 99,000/ yr NA Exhibit 18 Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 20 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 Data reported in Preamble is correct.

Exhibit 19 Data reported in Preamble is correct.

Exhibit 20 Preamble data was reported for the wrong case study.

Table 14. Corrected Exhibit 20: Baseline impacts ( annual average) for Seabrook. Impingement Entrainment One in scope facility: Seabrook Age 1 equivalent fish lost > 13,000/ yr > 4.5 million/ yr # lbs lost to landed fishery > 1,800 lb/ yr > 29,300 lb/ yr $ value of loss ( 2001$) $ 3,000  $ 5,000/ yr $ 142,000  $ 315,000/ yr Exhibit 21 Preamble data was reported for the wrong case study.

Table 15. Baseline impacts ( annual average) for Pilgrim. Impingement Entrainment One in scope facility: Pilgrim losses using benefits transfer Age 1 equivalent fish lost > 52,700 million/ yr > 214.3 million/ yr # lbs lost to landed fishery > 4,200 lb/ yr > 91,000 lb/ yr $ value of loss ( 2001$) $ 3,000  $ 5,000/ yr $ 0.5 million  $ 0.7 million/ yr Pilgrim losses using HRC as upper bounds and benefits transfer midpoints as lower Age 1 equivalent fish lost > 52,700/ yr > 14.3 million/ yr # lbs lost to landed fishery > 4,200 lb/ yr > 91,000 lb/ yr $ value of loss ( 2001$) $ 4,000  $ 507,000/ yr $ 0.6 million  $ 9.3 million/ yr Exhibit 21 Stratus Consulting Memorandum Page 21 Internal Draft  2 December 2002 Draft  Deliberative, Predecisional  Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute SC10084 Preamble data was reported for the wrong case study.

Table 16. Baseline losses at ( annual average) Monroe ( using HRC). Impingement Entrainment One in scope facility Age 1 equivalent fish lost > 35.8 million/ yr > 11.6 million/ yr # lbs lost to landed fishery > 1.4 million lb/ yr > 608,300 lb/ yr $ value of loss ( 2001$) $ 0.7 million  $ 5.6 million/ yr $ 1.3 million  $ 13.9 million/ yr


(3)  An engine manufacturer may produce up to six newly manufactured Tier 4 engines on or after [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], subject to the provisions of this paragraph (d)(3).  Tier 4 engines meeting the criteria of this paragraph (d)(3) are excepted without request from the otherwise applicable Tier 6 NOx emission standard.  To be eligible for this exception the engines must have a date of manufacture prior to August 31, 2013, be fully compliant with all requirements applicable to Tier 4 engines, and be labeled as specified by the FAA.  The manufacturer must include these engines in the report required by §87.50.  This exception is void for any manufacturer that produces more than six excepted engines under this paragraph.

11. Add a new subpart E containing §§87.40, 87.42, 87.44, 87.46, and 87.48 to part 87 to read as follows:

Subpart E    -- Certification Provisions

Sec.
87.40 General certification requirement.
87.42 Certification report to EPA.
87.44 Reporting CO2 emissions.
87.46 Recordkeeping.
87.48 Derivative engines for emissions certification purposes.

§87.40  General certification requirement.
Manufacturers of engines subject to this part must meet the requirements of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations as applicable.

§87.42  Production report to EPA.
Engine manufacturers must submit an annual production report as specified in this section.  This requirement applies for engines produced on or after January 1, 2013.
(a) You must submit the report for each calendar year in which you produce any engines subject to emission standards under this part.  The report is due by February 28 of the following calendar year.  Note that §87.64 requires you to report CO2 emission rates to EPA in addition to NOx.  Include these data in the report required by this section.  If you produce exempted or excepted engines, you may submit a single report with information on exempted/excepted and  normally certificated engines.
(b) Send the report to the Designated EPA Program Officer.
(c) In the report, specify your corporate name and the year for which you are reporting.  Include information as described in this section for each engine sub-model subject to emission standards under this part.  List each engine sub-model produced or certificated during the calendar year, including the following information for each sub-model:
   (1) The type of engine (turbofan, turboprop, etc.) and complete sub-model name, including any applicable model name, sub-model identifier, and engine type certificate family identifier.
   (2) The certificate under which it was produced.  Identify all the following:
      (i) The type certificate number.  Specify if the sub-model also has a type certificate issued by a certificating authority other than FAA.
      (ii) Your corporate name as listed in the certificate.
      (iii) Emission standards to which the engine is certificated.
      (iv) Date of issue of type certificate (month and year).
      (v) Whether or not this is a derivative engine for emissions certification purposes.  If so, identify the original certificated engine model.
      (vi) The engine sub-model that received the original type certificate for an engine type certificate family.
   (3) Identify the combustor of the sub-model, where more than one type of combustor is available.
   (4) The calendar-year production volume of engines from the sub-model that are covered by an FAA type certificate.  Record zero for sub-models with no engines produced during the calendar year, or state that the engine model is no longer in production and list the date of manufacture (month and year) of the last engine produced.  Specify the number of these engines that are intended for use on new aircraft and the number that are intended for use as non-exempt engines on in-use aircraft. For engines delivered without a final sub-model status and for which the manufacturer has not ascertained the engine's sub-model when installed before submitting its production report, the manufacturer may do any of the following in its initial report, and amend it later:
      (i) List the sub-model that was shipped or the most probable sub-model.
      (ii) List all potential sub-models.
      (iii) State "Unknown Sub-Model".
   (5) The number of engines tested and the number of test runs for the applicable type certificate.
   (6) The applicable test data and related information specified in Part III, Section 2.4 of ICAO Annex 16 (incorporated by reference in §87.8), except as otherwise allowed by this paragraph.  For purposes of this paragraph (c)(6), applicable test data means data required to certify the engine sub-model, which would typically include NOx, HC, CO and smoke number.  However, applicable test data would not include NOx, HC, or CO emissions for engines subject to only smoke standards.  Note that §87.64 also requires you to report CO2 emissions.  Specify thrust in kW for turboprop engines.  You may omit the following items specified in Part III, Section 2.4 of ICAO Annex 16:
      (i) Fuel specifications including fuel specification reference and hydrogen/carbon ratio.
      (ii) Methods used for data acquisition, correcting for ambient conditions, and data analysis.
      (iii) Intermediate emission indices and rates, however you may not omit the final characteristic level for each regulated pollutant in units of g/kN or g/kW.
(d) Clearly show what information you consider confidential by marking, circling, bracketing, stamping, or some other method.  We will store your confidential information as described in 40 CFR part 2. Also, we will disclose it only as specified in 40 CFR part 2.  If you send us information without claiming it is confidential, we may make it available to the public without further notice to you, as described in 40 CFR 2.204.
(e) Include the following signed statement and endorsement by an authorized representative of your company: "We submit this report under 40 CFR 87.42.  All the information in this report is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge."
(f) Where information provided for the previous year remains valid and complete, you may report your production volumes and state that there are no changes, without resubmitting the other information specified in this section.

§87.46 Recordkeeping.
(a) You must keep a copy of any reports or other information you submit to us for at least three years.
(b) Store these records in any format and on any media, as long as you can promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask for them.  You must keep these records readily available.  We may review them at any time.

§87.48 Derivative engines for emissions certification purposes.

 (a) General.  A type certificate holder may request from the FAA a determination that an engine configuration is considered a derivative engine for emissions certification purposes.  This would mean that the engine configuration is determined to be similar in design to a previously certificated engine(the "original" engine) for purposes of compliance with exhaust emission standards (gaseous and smoke).  In order for the engine configuration to be considered a derivative engine for emission purposes under this part, it must have been derived from an original engine that was certificated to the requirements of 14 CFR part 33, and one of the following conditions must be met:
   (1)  The FAA determined that a safety issue exists that requires an engine modification.
   (2) Emissions from the derivative engines are determined to be similar.  In general, this means the emissions must meet the criteria specified in paragraph (b) of this section.  FAA may adjust these criteria in unusual circumstances, consistent with good engineering judgment.
   (3) All of the regulated emissions from the derivative engine are lower than the original engine.
(b) Emissions similarity.  (1) The type certificate holder must demonstrate that the proposed derivative engine model's emissions meet the applicable standards and differ from the original model's emission rates only within the following ranges:
      (i) +- 3.0 g/kN for NOx.
      (ii) +- 1.0 g/kN for HC.
      (iii) +- 5.0 g/kN for CO.
      (iv) +- 2.0 SN for smoke.
   (2) If the characteristic level of the original certificated engine model (or any other sub-models within the emission type certificate family tested for certification) before modification is at or above 95% of the applicable standard for any pollutant, you must measure the proposed derivative engine model's emissions for all pollutants to demonstrate that the derivative engine's resulting characteristic levels will not exceed the applicable emission standards.  If the characteristic levels of the originally certificated engine model (and  all other sub-models within the emission type certificate family tested for certification) are below 95% of the applicable standard for each pollutant, then, you may use engineering analysis to demonstrate that the derivative engine will not exceed the applicable emission standards, consistent with good engineering judgment.  The engineering analysis must address all modifications from the original engine, including those approved for previous derivative engines.
(c) Continued production allowance.  Where we allow continued production of an engine model after new standards begin to apply, you may also produce engine derivatives if they conform to the specifications of this section.
(d) Non-derivative engines.  If the FAA determines that an engine model does not meet the requirements for a derivative engine for emissions certification purposes, the type certificate holder is required to demonstrate that the engine complies with the emissions standards applicable to a new engine type.

12. Add a new subpart F containing §87.50 to part 87 to read as follows:

Subpart F  -- Exemptions and exceptions

§87.50   Exemptions and exceptions.
This section specifies provisions related to exempting/excepting engines from some or all of the standards and requirements of this part 87. Exempted/excepted engines must conform to regulatory conditions specified for an exemption in this section and other applicable regulations. Exempted/excepted engines are deemed to be "subject to" the standards of this part even though they are not required to comply with the otherwise applicable requirements. Engines exempted/excepted with respect to certain standards must comply with other standards.  Exemption requests under paragraph (a) of this section must be approved by the FAA, with the written concurrence of EPA, to be effective.  Exemption requests under paragraph (b) of this section must be approved only by the FAA to be effective.  Exceptions do not require a case-by-case FAA approval.
(a) Engines installed in new aircraft.   Type certificate holders may request an exemption to produce a limited number of newly manufactured engines through December 31, 2016, to be installed in new aircraft as specified in this paragraph (a). This exemption is limited to NOx emissions from engines that are covered by a valid type certificate issued by FAA.
   (1) Submit your request for an exemption before producing the engines to be exempted to the FAA who will provide a copy to the Designated EPA Program Officer.  Exemption by an authority outside the United States does not satisfy this requirement.  Unless EPA and FAA allow otherwise, all requests must include the following:
      (i) Your corporate name and an authorized representative's contact information.
      (ii) A description of the engines for which you are requesting the exemption including the type certificate number and date it was issued by the FAA.  Include in your description the engine model and sub-model names and the types of aircraft in which the engines are expected to be installed.  Specify the number of engines that you would produce under the exemption and the period during which you would produce them.
      (iii) Information about the aircraft in which the engines will be installed.  Specify the airframe models and expected first purchasers/users of the aircraft.  Identify all countries in which you expect the aircraft to be registered.  Specify how many aircraft will be registered in the United States and how many will be registered in other countries; you may estimate this if it is not known.
      (iv) A justification of why the exemption is appropriate.  Justifications must include a description of the environmental impact of granting the exemption.  Include other relevant information such as the following.
          (A) Technical issues, from an environmental and airworthiness perspective, which may have caused a delay in compliance with a production cutoff.
          (B) Economic impacts on the manufacturer, operator(s), and aviation industry at large.
          (C) Environmental effects. This should consider the amount of additional air pollutant emissions that will result from the exemption. This could include consideration of items such as:
              (1) The amount that the engine model exceeds the standard, taking into account any other engine models in the engine type certificate family covered by the same type certificate and their relation to the standard.
              (2) The amount of the applicable air pollutant that would be emitted by an alternative engine for the same application.
              (3) The impact of changes to reduce the applicable air pollutant on other environmental factors, including emission rates of other air pollutants, community noise, and fuel consumption.
              (4) The degree to which the adverse impact would be offset by cleaner engines produced in the same time period (unless we decide to consider earlier engines).
          (D) Impact of unforeseen circumstances and hardship due to business circumstances beyond your control (such as an employee strike, supplier disruption, or calamitous events).
          (E) Projected future production volumes and plans for producing a compliant version of the engine model in question.
          (F) Equity issues in administering the production cutoff among economically competing parties.
          (G) List of other certificating authorities from which you have requested (or expect to request) exemptions, and a summary of the request.
          (H) Any other relevant factors.
      (v) A statement signed by your authorized representative attesting that all information included in the request is accurate.
   (2) In consultation with the EPA, the FAA may specify additional conditions for the exemption.  The FAA may also require additional information pursuant to 14 CFR Parts 11 and 34, as applicable to exemption requests made to the FAA.
   (3) You must submit the annual report specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
   (4) The permanent record for each engine exempted under this paragraph (a) must indicate that the engine is an exempted new engine.
   (5) Engines exempted under this paragraph (a) must be labeled with the following statement: "EXEMPT NEW".
   (6) You must notify the FAA if you determine after submitting your request that the information is not accurate, either from an error or from changing circumstances.  If you believe the new or changed information could have affected approval of your exemption (including information that could have affected the number of engines we exempt), you must notify the FAA promptly.  The FAA will consult with EPA as needed to address any concerns related to this new or corrected information.
 (b) Temporary exemptions based on flights for short durations at infrequent intervals. The emission standards of this part do not apply to engines which power aircraft operated in the United States for short durations at infrequent intervals. Such operations are limited to:
      (1) Flights of an aircraft for the purpose of export to a foreign country, including any flights essential to demonstrate the integrity of an aircraft prior to its flight to a point outside the United States.
      (2) Flights to a base where repairs, alterations or maintenance are to be performed, or to a point of storage, and flights for the purpose of returning an aircraft to service.
      (3) Official visits by representatives of foreign governments.
      (4) Other flights the Secretary determines to be for short durations at infrequent intervals.   A request for such a determination shall be made before the flight takes place.

(c) Spare engines.  Newly manufactured engines meeting the definition of "spare engine" are excepted as follows:
   (1) This exception allows production of a newly manufactured engine for installation on an in-service aircraft.  It does not allow for installation of a spare engine on a new aircraft.
   (2) Each spare engine must be identical to a sub-model previously certificated to meet all requirements applicable to Tier 4 engines or later requirements.
   (3) Spare engines excepted under this paragraph (c) may be used only where the emissions of the spare engines are certificated to equal to or lower emission standards than those of the engines they are replacing, for all regulated pollutants.
   (4) No prior approval is required to produce spare engines.  Engine manufacturers must include information about their production of spare engines in the annual report specified in paragraph (d) of this section
   (5) The permanent record for each engine excepted under this paragraph (c) must indicate that the engine was produced as an excepted spare engine.
   (6) Engines excepted under this paragraph (c) must be labeled with the following statement: "EXCEPTED SPARE".
 (d) Annual reports.  If you produce engines with an exemption/exception under this section, you must submit an annual report with respect to such engines.
   (1) You must send the Designated EPA Program Officer a report describing your production of exempted/excepted engines for each calendar year in which you produce such engines by February 28 of the following calendar year.  You may include this information in the certification report described in §87.42.  Confirm that the information in your initial request is still accurate, or describe any relevant changes.
   (2) Provide the information specified in this paragraph (d)(2).  For purposes of this paragraph (d), treat spare engine exceptions separate from other new engine exemptions.  Include the following for each exemption/exception and each engine model and sub-model:
      (i) Engine model and sub-model names.
      (ii) Serial number of each engine.
      (iii) Use of each engine (for example, spare or new installation).
      (iv) Types of aircraft in which the engines were installed (or are intended to be installed for spare engines).
      (v) Serial number of the new aircraft in which engines are installed (if known) , or the name of the air carriers (or other operators) using spare engines.
   (3) Include information in the report only for engines having a date of manufacture within the specific calendar year.

Subpart G -- Test Procedures
13. The heading for subpart G is revised as set forth above.

14. Revise §87.60 to read as follows:
§87.60 Testing engines.
(a) Use the equipment and procedures specified in Appendix 3, Appendix 5, and Appendix 6 of ICAO Annex 16 (incorporated by reference in §87.8), as applicable, to demonstrate whether engines meet the gaseous emission standards specified in subpart C of this part.  Measure the emissions of all regulated gaseous pollutants.  Similarly, use the equipment and procedures specified in Appendix 2 and Appendix 6 of ICAO Annex 16 to determine whether engines meet the smoke standard specified in subpart C of this part.  The compliance demonstration consists of establishing a mean value from testing some number of engines, then calculating a "characteristic level" by applying a set of statistical factors that take into account the number of engines tested.  Round each characteristic level to the same number of decimal places as the corresponding emission standard.  For turboprop engines, use the procedures specified for turbofan engines, consistent with good engineering judgment.
(b) Use a test fuel meeting the specifications described in Appendix 4 of ICAO Annex 16 (incorporated by reference in §87.8).  The test fuel must not have additives whose purpose is to suppress smoke, such as organometallic compounds.
(c) Prepare test engines by including accessories that are available with production engines if they can reasonably be expected to influence emissions.  The test engine may not extract shaft power or bleed service air to provide power to auxiliary gearbox-mounted components required to drive aircraft systems.
(d) Test engines must reach a steady operating temperature before the start of emission measurements.
(e) In consultation with the EPA, the FAA may approve alternate procedures for measuring emissions as specified in this paragraph (e).  This might include testing and sampling methods, analytical techniques, and equipment specifications that differ from those specified in this part.  Manufacturers and operators may request this approval by sending a written request with supporting justification to the FAA and to the Designated EPA Program Officer.  Such a request may be approved only if one of the following conditions is met:
   (1) The engine cannot be tested using the specified procedures.
   (2) The alternate procedure is shown to be equivalent to or better (e.g., more accurate or precise) than the specified procedure.
(f) The following landing and take-off (LTO) cycles apply for emission testing and calculating weighted LTO values:

                    Table 1 to §87.60  -  LTO Test Cycles

                                     Mode

                                   Turboprop

                               Subsonic Turbofan

                              Supersonic Turbofan

                            Percent of Rated Output
                            Time in Mode (minutes)

                               Percent of Rated Output

                            Time in Mode (minutes)

                            Percent of Rated Output

                            Time in Mode (minutes)

                                   Take-off

                                      100

                                      0.5

                                         100

                                      0.7

                                      100

                                      1.2

                                     Climb

                                      90

                                      2.5

                                         85

                                      2.2

                                      65

                                      2.0

                                    Descent

                                       --

                                       --

                                          --

                                       --

                                      15

                                      1.2

                                   Approach

                                      30

                                      4.5

                                         30

                                      4.0

                                      34

                                      2.3

                               Taxi/ground idle

                                       7

                                     26.0

                                          7

                                     26.0

                                      5.8

                                     26.0

(g) Engines comply with an applicable standard if the testing results show that the engine type certificate family's characteristic level does not exceed the numerical level of that standard, as described in §87.60.

§§87.61-87.63 -- [Removed]
15. Remove §§87.61-87.63.

§87.64 -- [Revised]
16. Remove and reserve paragraph (a).

§§87.65-87.71 -- [Removed]
17. Remove §§87.65-87.71.

Subpart H -- [Removed]
18. Remove subpart H.

PART 1068--GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS FOR ENGINE PROGRAMS

19. The authority citation for part 1068 continues to read as follows:
Authority:   42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart A -- [Amended]

20. Amend §1068.1 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§1068.1  Does this part apply to me?
*	*	*	*	*
(b) This part does not apply to any of the following engine or vehicle categories:
   (1) Light-duty motor vehicles (see 40 CFR part 86).
   (2) Heavy-duty motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines, except as specified in 40 CFR part 86.
   (3) Aircraft engines, except as specified in 40 CFR part 87.
   (4) Land-based nonroad compression-ignition engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 89.
   (5) Small nonroad spark-ignition engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 90.
   (6) Marine spark-ignition engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 91.
   (7) Locomotive engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 92.
   (8) Marine compression-ignition engines we regulate under 40 CFR parts 89 or 94.
*	*	*	*	*