 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I MEMORANDUM DATE: December 15, 2005 SUBJ: Technical Support Document for the Maine 15% VOC Rate of Progress Plan and 5% Increment of Progress Plan FROM: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer Air Quality Planning Unit TO: David B. Conroy, Chief Air Quality Branch I. BACKGROUND Section 182( b)( 1) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as amended in 1990 requires that moderate and above one hour ozone nonattainment areas develop plans to reduce area wide Volatile Organic Compound ( VOC) emissions from a 1990 baseline by 15%. The plans were required to be submitted by November 15, 1993 and the reductions were required to be achieved within 6 years after enactment, which is November 15, 1996. The Clean Air Act also set certain limitations on the creditability of certain types of reductions. Specifically, State's cannot take credit for reductions achieved by Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program ( FMVCP) measures ( new car emissions standards) that were already in place prior to the 1990 amendments, or for reductions due to controls on gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure ( RVP) promulgated prior to 1990. Furthermore, the CAA does not allow credit for corrections for vehicle inspection and maintenance ( I/ M) programs or corrections to reasonably available control technology ( RACT) rules as these programs were required prior to 1990.

On November 6, 1991, a listing of ozone nonattainment areas was published in the Federal Register. The Portland area, which includes all of Cumberland, Sagadahoc and York counties, was listed as a moderate nonattainment area for the one hour ozone standard. Maine is, therefore, subject to the 15% rate ofprogress ( ROP) requirement.

Maine submitted a final 15% ROP plan to EPA on July 25, 1995. However, air quality in the Portland area fluctuated above and below the one hour ozone NAAQS since 1995. Pursuant to EPA 1May 10, 1995, guidance memorandum signed by John S. Seitz, Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which stated in part that ozone nonattainment areas subject to 15% ROP requirements that were meeting the ozone standard did not need to submit 15% ROP plans as long as the area continued to meet the standard.

2 policy1, the 15% plan was not a requirement during times that the Portland area's air quality was better than EPA's one hour ozone NAAQS. This made approval of the 15% plan a low priority for Region 1. Table 1 below shows the attainment status of the Portland area since 1995 with the one hour ozone standard.

Table 1: Compliance of Portland area with 1 hour ozone NAAQS Year One hour Status 1995 Nonattainment 1996 Nonattainment 1997 Nonattainment 1998 Attainment 1999 Nonattainment 2000 Attainment 2001 Attainment 2002 Nonattainment 2003 Nonattainment 2004 Nonattainment As can be seen in Table 1, the Portland area has been violating the one hour ozone standard since 2002, and so has been obligated to prepare and submit to EPA a 15% plan since that time. In consultation with Maine DEP, it was determined that the state would revise the 15% plan submitted in 1995 to reflect up to date emission estimation methodologies and control strategies. On June 9, 2005, the state submitted a revised, adopted 15% rate ofprogress plan for the Portland one hour nonattainment area. In partial fulfillment of it's obligations under the 8 hour ozone standard, Maine DEP's June 9, 2005 submittal also included a 5% increment of progress plan. A description and evaluation of the 5% increment of progress plan is included in section III. of this document. 3 This document summarizes the EPA's evaluation of the Maine 15% and 5% emission reduction plans, the revised emission inventories used in development of these plans, and the 2007 motor vehicle emission budgets for VOC and NOx established by the 5% increment of progress plan, to determine whether these items can be approved as part of the SIP.

To perform this evaluation, the EPA has referred to the requirements of Section 182 of the CAA and to the General Preamble to Title I ( 57 FR 13498), and to the Phase 1 rule governing implementation of the 8 hour ozone standard ( 69 FR 23951). Additionally, Maine's plan was reviewed against a variety of guidance documents as mentioned herein.

II. 15% Rate of Progress Emission Reduction Plan As chronicled above, the Portland one hour ozone area was designated as nonattainment in 1991, and classified as a moderate area. Pursuant to section 182( b)( 1)( a) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA), moderate nonattainment areas were required to develop plans to reduce VOC emission by 15% from 1990 to 1996, net of growth. The calculation of the required emission reductions is discussed below.

II. A. CALCULATION OF REQUIRED EMISSION REDUCTIONS.

The calculation of the required reductions is explained in the guidance document entitled, Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory and the 1996 target for the 15% Rate of Progress plans. An explanation and evaluation of the steps involved in this calculation is provided below.

Step 1: 1990 Base Year Inventory:

The first step in calculating the emission reductions needed to comply with the 15% VOC emission reduction requirement is to prepare a 1990 base year emission inventory for VOCs. The EPA approved the Maine 1990 base year inventory of ozone precursors within the February 28, 1997 Federal Register ( 62 FR 9081). The emission estimates contained within Maine's revised 15% plan submitted in June of 2005 were updated using improved methodologies that have arisen since the earlier inventory was prepared. Maine DEP checked the 1990 emission estimation methodologies against the methods used to prepare it's projected 2005 inventory to ensure that the same methods were used for both inventories. This ensures that emission reduction credit is not taken due simply to changes in emission estimation technique. Table 2 below compares the previously approved emission estimates 4 to those in the State's revised 1990 inventory.

Table 2: Comparison of 1990 Emission Estimates ( tpsd)

SOURCE CATEGORY Originally approved emissions June, 2005 emissions Point Source 9.65 9.65 Area Source 31.80 33.43 Non road Mobile 7.40 18.08 On Road Mobile 49.87 63.31 Biogenic 197.60 197.6 Total 296.32 322.07 1990 Inventory Changes; VOC Area Sources:

Maine DEP made a number of changes to it's previously approved 1990 area source VOC emission estimate in order to use more recent emission estimation procedures. The largest changes were to the cutback asphalt and consumer and commercial products categories, as described below.

Asphalt paving; cutback asphalt: The original 1990 estimate for the Portland area was 1.28 tpsd, but has been increased significantly to 7.71 tpsd. This increase was caused by a change in the source of activity data for the 1990 base year estimate. Maine's original activity data was obtained by a survey conducted in the early 1990s. However, the state no longer has adequate documentation for this survey, and is reluctant to use it within the revised plans. Therefore, activity data from the U. S. Department of Energy was used for both the 1990 base year, and the 2005 projection year inventories.

Consumer & Commercial Products: The original 1990 emission estimate of 3.81 tpsd was based on the recommended emission factor of the time, which was 6.3 lbs VOC per capita. The recommended emission factor was subsequently increased by EPA to 7.84 lbs VOC per capita, and Maine DEP has used that factor and determined that it's 1990 emission level was 4.74 tpsd. 5 Additional, smaller changes made to various other area source categories account for the overall net increase of 1.63 tpsd in emissions for this sector.

1990 Inventory Changes; Nonroad Engines:

With the exception of the commercial marine, locomotive, and aircraft categories, emissions from nonroad engines can currently be estimated using EPA's Nonroad engine model. However, at the time Maine DEP's original 1990 inventory was prepared, the state of the art method for preparing such estimates was based on reports produced by EPA's then Office of Mobile Sources entitled the " Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Studies" ( NEVES). Maine's original estimate for this sector was based on these studies, and for the Portland area was determined to be 7.06 tpsd for VOC. To update this emission estimate, Maine DEP ran the Nonroad engine model for calendar year 1990 and found emissions to be 17.32 tpsd VOC. This increase of 10.26 tpsd, coupled with minor changes made to the aircraft, rail, and commercial marine emission estimates, account for the increased 1990 emission estimate for this sector.

1990 Inventory Changes; Onroad Mobile Sources:

Maine DEP's originally approved 1990 emission estimate for onroad vehicles was based on EPA's Mobile 5a model. Maine DEP has re calculated this estimate using the most current version of the model, which is the Mobile 6.2 version, and found emissions to be 63.31 tpsd of VOC. EPA Region 1 assisted Maine DEP with the preparation of this revised 1990 emission estimate and believe it represents a more accurate estimate of emissions from the on road mobile sector than the previous value.

Step 2: Develop 1990 Rate of Progress Base Year Inventory The second step involves excluding biogenic emissions and emissions included within the base year inventory which do not emanate from within the boundaries of the nonattainment area. Maine's base year inventory for the Portland nonattainment area did not include any emissions from sources outside of the area. Therefore, step 2 consists of simply subtracting the biogenic VOC component, producing a " rate of progress" inventory of 124.47 tpsd.

Step 3: Develop the Adjusted Base Year Inventory The third step in calculating the required emission reductions is to subtract the emission reductions that are not creditable toward the 15% VOC emission reduction goal. The reductions which are not creditable include those which would have occurred even without passage of the 1990 CAA Amendments due to control programs already in place. The FMVCP and gasoline RVP standards 6 are examples of such non creditable programs.

The magnitude of the noncreditable, pre Clean Air Act Amendments FMVCP reductions is calculated as follows. First, an emission estimate is obtained from the Mobile 6 model using 2005 as the evaluation year, and setting the model to not activate the post 1990 Clean Air Act controls, such as the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. The resulting emission factors are then multiplied by by the 1990 VMT estimate. 2005 is selected as the evaluation year because that is the year by which Maine DEP's revised 15% plan demonstrates that the 15% VOC reduction occurred. Creating this calculation allows one to determine the amount that emissions will be reduced between 1990 and 2005 from the noncreditable FMVCP by subtracting the resulting value from the actual 1990 on road emission estimate. The difference between the two values produces the emission benefit derived from implementation of the " noncreditable" FMVCP. Maine included within the 15% plan submittal the input and output MOBILE6.2 files documenting these calculations. The noncreditable FMVCP reductions have been determined to be 35.93 tpsd.

Maine has no RVP reductions to account for since Maine has been using gasoline with a RVP of 9.0 psi or lower since 1989.

The net affect of these adjustments is shown within Table 3 below:

Table 3: Subtraction of non creditable emission reductions 1990 Rate of Progress Inventory 124.47 ( tpsd)

Non creditable FMVCP  35.93 Non creditable RVP 0 1990 Adjusted Base Year Inventory 88.54 ( tpsd)

Step 4: Calculate Required 15% Reductions In this step, the adjusted base year inventory is multiplied by 15% to calculate the amount of the required 15% emission reduction:

88.54 * 0.15 = 13.28 7 Step 5: Calculate Total Expected Reductions by 1996 The total expected reductions from the 1990 rate of progress inventory ( calculated in step 2) include the 15% emission reduction calculated in step 4, and the emission reductions anticipated from the noncreditable programs as outlined in step 3. Additionally, emission reductions that occur between 1990 and 1996 due to corrections to pre existing ( pre 1990) but deficient I& M programs and/ or deficient RACT rules, though not eligible to count towards the 15% emission reduction requirement, still represent emission reductions that are expected to occur between 1990 and 1996. Maine did not have a pre 1990 I& M requirement, nor any " RACT Fix up" obligations.

The total expected emission reductions for the Portland nonattainment area are as shown in Table 4:

Table 4: Total Required Reductions for the Portland Area Creditable Required Reductions 13.28 Non creditable Reductions 35.93 Total Required Reductions ( before growth) 49.21 Step 6: Set Target Emission Level for 1996 The target level of emissions for 1996 is obtained by subtracting the total required reductions ( step 5) from the 1990 rate ofprogress inventory ( step 2). For the Portland area this yields:

124.47  49.21 = 75.26 Step 7: Project emissions to evaluation year  2005 The original 15% plans required by the CAA were required to be submitted to EPA in 1993. These plans were to include emission projections to 1996, the year by which the 15% emission reductions were to be achieved. Due to the circumstances described above, Maine DEP's revised 15% plan could not conceivably demonstrate that a 15% emission reduction occurred from 1990 levels by 1996, as that year has passed. Accordingly, an alternative year that would demonstrate the required level of emission reductions were achieved expeditiously was needed. In accordance with past case law, once a statutory deadline has 8 passed and has not been replaced by a later one, the deadline then becomes " as soon as possible." ( Delaney v. EPA, 898 F. 2d 687, 691 ( 9th Circuit, 1990)). EPA has interpreted this requirement to be " as soon as practicable." Upon consultation between EPA and Maine DEP, 2005 was determined to be the most suitable year for Maine's revised 15% analysis to demonstrate the 15% reduction by. Accordingly, an estimate of emissions in 2005 was needed.

Although an estimate of 2005 emission was needed, the most current inventory available to Maine DEP was it's 2002 inventory, and so an estimate of growth in emissions from 2002 to 2005 was used to complete the 15% VOC emission reduction demonstration. The projection was made by taking the 2002 inventory and multiplying it by growth factors which estimate growth from 2002 to 2005. Growth factors specific to each source category were used since the sources typically grow at different rates.

Maine used growth factors obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis ( BEA) via a tool they developed called the Economic Growth Analysis System ( EGAS) to project most of the point and area source emissions from 2002 to 2005. The growth factors were available by SIC code, and are shown within the file " GF1999 2007PA1Andro. xls" submitted as part of the State's 15% SIP. The Maine Department of Transportation ( DOT) provided an estimate of 2005 VMT for the on road mobile source projection, and the EPA's Nonroad model was used to project emissions for that sector.

Once emissions were projected to 2005, a review was made to see if any controls not in existence in 2002 became effective by 2005. If so, the state reduced emissions to account for the controls as will be described in section II. B. of this document. Maine DEP did not use the emission reductions generated pursuant to it's adoption of area source VOC rules developed by the Ozone Transport Commission ( OTC) in it's 15% plan, i. e., Maine's projected 2005 emission estimates do not reflect emission reductions from these measures. Maine DEP did use reductions from these measures to meet it's 5% plan emission reductions requirements as is explained in Section III. of this document.

Table 5 below compares Maine's projected, controlled 2005 emissions for the Portland nonattainment area with it's 1990 emission estimates: 9 Table 5: Comparison of 1990 and 2005 VOC Emissions Emission Source Category 1990 Base Year Emissions 2005 projected, controlled Emissions Point 9.65 4.32 *

Area 33.43 24.70 Off road Mobile 18.08 15.75 On road Mobile 63.31 23.48 Total 124.47 68.25 * includes 0.82 tpsd in VOC offsets awarded to Spinnaker Coating The CAA Section 182( b)( 1)( A) language regarding the 15% VOC emission reduction requirement states that this reduction must occur, " accounting for any growth in emissions after the year in which the CAAA of 1990 were enacted". This has been interpreted to mean any growth in emission levels between 1990 and 1996 must also be offset so that by 1996, emission levels will be truly 15% lower than they were in 1990. { Note  in actuality, emission levels will be reduced by more than 15% in the evaluation year because other required reductions, such as those from preenactment FMVCP, will also be occurring as described above.}

Maine's projected, controlled 2005 inventory for the Portland area totals 68.25 tpsd. This is considerably lower than the target level of emissions of 75.26 calculated in step 6. Maine DEP has therefore shown that emissions have been reduced by 15% from 1990 levels, after accounting for growth, and not counting the non creditable reductions from the FMVCP program.

II. B. EVALUATION OF CONTROL MEASURES A) Point Source Controls Maine DEP's revised 15% plan analysis shows that VOC emissions from point sources fell 5.33 tpsd ( 55%) between 1990 and 2005. Table 6 below summarizes the control programs that affected this decrease in emissions. 10 Table 6: Point Source Controls for VOC Sources Point Source Category Rule Implementation Date Federal Approval Chapter 129 ( Surface Coating) May 31, 1995 June 17, 1994 ( 59 FR 31154)

Chapter 130 ( Solvent Degreasers) May 31, 1995 June 17, 1994 ( 59 FR 31154)

Chapter 134 ( Non CTG Sources) May 31, 1995 April 18, 2000 ( 65 FR 20749)

Bulk Terminal Emission Limit May 31, 1996 October 15, 1996 ( 61 FR 53636)

Additional information on each of these regulations is available in the Federal Register notice that contains EPA's approval of them.

VOC Offsets: Maine DEP's revised 15% plan indicates that one source in the Portland area, Spinnaker Coatings in Westbrook, applied for and obtained VOC offset credits in the amount of 213 tons which could be used ( emitted) in the future. To account for this, Maine DEP translated these emissions into what could be emitted during a typical summer day, ( 0.82 tons), and added that value to it's projected 2005 ( and 2007 for it's 5% plan) emission estimate from point sources.

B) Area Source Controls Maine DEP's revised 15% plan analysis shows that VOC emissions from area sources fell 8.73 tpsd ( 26%) between 1990 and 2005, despite the growth that occurred in population and other activity indicators. The discussion below summarizes the area source control programs that caused this change in emissions.

Stage I: Maine has adopted and submitted to EPA a Stage I vapor recovery regulation that limits VOC emissions from the filling of underground storage tanks at gasoline stations. The rule applies to facilities with throughputs that exceed 10,000 gallons per month. Chapter 118 of the State's VOC control regulations entitled " Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Vapor Control" was 11 submitted to EPA on July 11, 1994, and approved as a revision to the Maine SIP within a federal register notice published on June 29, 1995 ( 60 FR 33730). The State projects that VOC emissions will be reduced by 1.35 ( 52%) tpsd by this program between 1990 and 2005.

Stage II: Maine has adopted and submitted to EPA a Stage II vapor recovery regulation that limits VOC emissions from vehicle refueling activity in the Portland nonattainment area. Chapter 118 of the State's VOC control regulations entitled " Gasoline Dispensing Facilities Vapor Control" was submitted to EPA on July 26, 1995, and approved as a revision to the Maine SIP within a federal register notice published on October 15, 1996 ( 61 FR 53636). The rule is applicable to gasoline stations with throughputs greater than 1,000,000 gallons per year. The state included the Mobile6.2 runs within it's revised 15% plan documenting how the emission reductions from the stage II program were determined. The Mobile6.2 program calculates emission reductions from a State's entire set of on road mobile source control programs simultaneously, and therefore a separate amount of emission reduction credit from the Stage II program is not reported in the State's 15% SIP.

Cutback Asphalt: Maine has adopted and submitted to EPA a cutback asphalt regulation ( Chapter 131) that prohibits the use of cutback asphalt for most applications during the ozone season. Maine adopted this rule on January 6, 1993, and submitted it to EPA as a revision to the State's SIP. EPA approved the rule as part of the State's SIP within a federal register notice dated June 17, 1994 ( 59 FR 31154). The State determined that emissions were reduced by 7.33 tpsd ( 95%) between 1990 and 2005 due to this control program.

Architectural and Industrial ( AIM) Coatings: Emission reductions were taken from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance ( AIM) surface coating emission source category due to a federal rule that required such coatings be reformulated to emit less VOCs. In a memo dated March 22, 1995, EPA provided guidance on the expected reductions from the national rulemaking on AIM coatings, stating that emissions would be reduced by 20%. Maine correctly calculated the emission reductions that will occur due to the federal rule, which covered the architectural, traffic marking, high performance maintenance, and other specialty purpose coating categories. The State determined that despite growth in this sector between 1990 and 2005, emissions were reduced by 0.46 tpsd ( 9%) in the Portland nonattainment area due to this federal rule.

Automobile Refinishing: A November 29, 1994, EPA guidance memorandum specifies that States can assume a 37% control level for this source category due to a National rule. The State projects that between 1990 and 2005, the net effect of activity 12 growth and implementation of the federal rule reduced emissions by 0.12 tpsd ( 20%) in the Portland nonattainment area.

Consumer Products: On June 22, 1995, EPA issued a guidance memorandum regarding the regulatory schedule for consumer and commercial products which indicated that States that have not adopted their own consumer and commercial products rule could take emission reduction credit from a pending national consumer and commercial products rulemaking. After re calculating it's base year emission estimate to account for updated guidance as mentioned earlier in this document, the State applied the recommended control level of 12.5% and determined that between 1990 and 2005, emissions from this sector actually rose by 0.19 tpsd ( 4%) as population growth overwhelmed the reductions from the federal rule.

C) On road Mobile Sources Maine DEP identified and modeled within it's Mobile 6.2 runs a number of state and federal motor vehicle emission and fuel control programs that reduce emissions in the state. These control programs are discussed below. Region 1 has confirmed that Maine correctly modeled these programs together to calculate the overall emission reduction benefit from them.

1) Low RVP Gasoline program: On June 26, 1991 the State submitted a letter from the Governor requesting that Maine participate in the reformulated fuels program. This request was published in the Federal Register on September 10, 1991, 56 FR 46119. However, Maine subsequently rescinded it's participation in this program and replaced it with it's Chapter 119 rule, a low RVP program which limits the RVP of gasoline sold in the 7 southern most Maine counties, including all of the Portland 1 hour area, to a level no greater than 7.8 from May 1 to September 15 of each year. This regulation was submitted to EPA and approved into the State's SIP on March 6, 2002 ( 67 FR 10099).

2) Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance ( I& M) program:

Maine state regulations require an I& M program in Cumberland county. The program has minimal requirements, essentially only requiring a check of gas cap fitting adequacy. An anti tampering program which checks for any modification to exhaust catalysts exists in Portland, Sagadahoc, and York counties. Maine adopted it's automobile inspection and maintenance program on July 9, 1998, and submitted it to EPA as a revision to the State's SIP. EPA approved the program into the state's SIP in a federal register notice published on January 10, 2001 ( 66 FR 1875).

3) Tier I Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program: The EPA promulgated standards for 1994 and later model year light duty vehicles and light duty trucks ( 56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991). 13 Since the standards were adopted after the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, the resulting emission reductions are creditable toward the 15 percent reduction goal.

4) California Low Emission Vehicle Program: Chapter 127 of the Maine DEP Air rules is entitled " New Motor Vehicle Emission Standards", began phasing in during 2001, and requires the sale of motor vehicles meeting California certification standards contained within Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations pertaining to emission standards for motor vehicles. Maine submitted this rule to EPA as a revision to the State's SIP on February 25, 2004. EPA approved the program into the Maine SIP in a final rule published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2005 ( 70 FR 21959).

5) Onboard Vapor Recovery Systems: This is a federal program required by section 202( a)( 6) of the 1990 CAAA. For passenger cars, the onboard control requirements will be phased in over three model years with 40 percent, 80 percent, and 100 percent of new car production being required to meet the standard in model years 1998, 1999, and 2000, respectively. The phase in of onboard controls for light trucks will follow the phase in period for cars. Onboard controls for the lighter class of light trucks ( those under 6000 pounds GVWR) will be phased in during models years 2001 through 2003, while onboard controls for the heavier light trucks ( those from 6001 through 8500 pounds GVWR) will be phased in during models years 2004 through 2006. When fully phased in the new controls will capture 95 percent of refueling emissions.

D) Non road mobile Federal Non road Control Program EPA has established emission standards for a variety of non road engine categories that will reduce ozone precursor emissions over the time period covered by the Maine 15% plan. These standards affect heavy duty compression ignition ( diesel) engines, small non road spark ignition ( gasoline) engines, large non road gasoline engines, gasoline powered outboard and personal watercraft engines, commercial diesel marine engines, recreational stern drive and inboard engines, and locomotives. Detailed information regarding each of these emission control programs is available on EPA's web site at: www. epa. gov/ otaq.

EPA has also created a draft Nonroad air emissions estimation model that can be used to calculate emissions from all nonroad engines except those used to power aircraft, locomotives, and large commercial marine vessels, for the present year, and for past or future years. Maine DEP used the Nonroad model to calculate air emissions from this sector in the Portland area. 14 Region 1 has reviewed and confirmed the emission estimates for Nonroad engines Maine has used in it's revised inventories and ROP plans.

Table 7 illustrates the decline in non road emissions Maine predicts will occur due to implementation of the various federal non road engine controls in the Portland area. The estimates were derived from the Nonroad model, combined with individual emission estimates calculated for aircraft, commercial marine vessels ( CMVs), and locomotives.

Table 7  Non road Emissions Trend ( tpsd)

1990 2002 2005 2007 VOC 18.08 17.04 15.75 14.71 On April 30th, 2004, EPA published a final rule ( the " Phase 1" rule), which included provisions for revoking the one hour ozone standard one year from the effective date of the designations for the 8 hour ozone standard. This requirement is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR Part 50.9( b). Prior to this happening, ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above were required to include in their submittals under section 172( b) of the CAA, contingency measures to be implemented if ROP was not achieved or if the standard is not attained by the applicable date.

However, on May 26, 2005, EPA published a final rule ( 70 FR 30592) that, in light of the revocation of the one hour ozone standard, removed the requirement that contingency plans be adopted for ROP plans submitted to make progress toward achievement of the one hour ozone standard. Accordingly, Maine DEP's revised 15% ROP plan does not contain contingency measures.

Maine's revised 15% plan analysis indicates that the State easily meets the 15% VOC emission reduction requirement by 2005.

III. 5% Increment of Progress Plan On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new national ambient air quality standard ( NAAQS) for ozone based on an 8 hour averaging period. Court challenges to the 8 hour ozone standard delayed implementation of it, but eventually these issues were resolved and on April 30, 2004, EPA promulgated designations for the 8 hour ozone standard in the Federal Register ( 69 FR 23858). The effective date for the designations was June 15, 2004. Portions of Maine were designated nonattainment for this standard, 15 including the Portland 8 hour area which was classified as a marginal nonattainment area. The Portland 8 hour marginal nonattainment area differs geographically from the Portland, 1 hour moderate area. The 8 hour area consists of Sagadahoc county, most portions of Cumberland and York counties, and one town in Androscoggin county.

On April 30, 2004, EPA also published the first part of it's rule governing implementation of the 8 hour ozone standard ( 69 FR 23951). This will be referred to as the " Phase 1" rule in the remainder of this document. Although the Phase 1 rule dealt primarily with issues pertaining to the new 8 hour ozone standard, it included some provisions relevant to the one hour ozone NAAQS. Of particular interest to Maine was a provision allowing one hour areas with unmet attainment demonstration obligations to submit, in lieu of a full one hour ozone attainment demonstration, an early 5% increment of progress plan toward achievement of the 8 hour standard. Such plans would need to be submitted by no later than one year from the effective date of the 8 hour ozone standard, meaning no later than June 15, 2005. Maine's Portland one hour nonattainment area has an unmet attainment demonstration obligation, and so Maine DEP's June 9, 2005 SIP revision request included a 5% increment of progress plan.

The geographic area covered by the Portland 8 hour area is smaller than the area covered by the Portland 1 hour area in that it only includes portions of Cumberland and York counties, whereas the 1 hour area covers these two counties entirely ( plus all of Sagadahoc county). Given the difficulties of SIP planning activities at a sub county level, such as preparation of emission inventories at such a level ( see elaboration on this below), Maine DEP developed it's 5% increment of progress plan such that it covers all of the old one hour nonattainment area. As such it covers a considerably larger area and plans for more emission reductions than is required, even though one town, the town of Durham in Androscoggin county, is not included in the plan. EPA worked closely with the Maine DEP in development of this plan, and we believe that the geographic area Maine DEP chose to cover in it's 5% increment of progress plans is appropriate and reasonable. This is so primarily because the mix of stationary and mobile emission sources is fairly uniform across the three county area, and so the net result of expansion of the geographic area is simply an increase in the amount of emission reductions that must be planned for.

As mentioned above, Maine chose not to prepare their 5% SIP at the exact geographic area as defined by the 8 hour Portland area, as this would have necessitated preparation of inventories at the sub county level. Doing so presents numerous challenges. For example, many of the largest area source emission categories, such as those for industrial surface coatings, degreasing, and 2" Guidance on 5% Increment of Progress ( 40 CFR 51.905( a)( 1)( ii)); dated August 18, 2004; from Lydia Wegman, Director, OAQPS, to EPA Regional Air Directors 16 graphic arts, are produced by multiplying SIC level employment data available from the U. S. Census Bureau by SIC specific emission factors. When done at the county level using the Census Bureau's County level employment database, this is a relatively straightforward calculation. However, preparation of a subcounty inventory would necessitate use of the Census Bureau's Zip Code level employment database, and would greatly expand the number of calculations needed to develop an emission estimate.

Additionally, EPA's Nonroad model is designed to produce emission estimates at the full county level. Although the model can be re configured to produce sub county emission estimates, this is not easily done. More importantly, doing so is pointless unless one has in hand accurate sub county level data, such as estimates of lawn and garden, recreational boat, and construction equipment populations and activity levels at the sub county level. It is unlikely that Maine DEP could gather the necessary data to make running the EPA's Nonroad model at the sub county level a productive exercise.

Given the difficulty and additional uncertainty introduced by developing emission inventories at the sub county level, it is not likely that doing so would produce data that would improve our decision making ability. Accordingly, we believe that Maine DEP's use of full county emission inventories is appropriate, with one exception. Since development of on road mobile source emission estimates at the sub county level is not unduly burdensome, and critical for transportation conformity purposes, Maine DEP developed on road mobile source inventories for the base and projected years that exactly match the geographic area of the 8 hour nonattainment area. This was done to establish transportation conformity budgets for the Portland 8 hour ozone nonattainment area.

III. A. 5% Increment of Progress Plan Requirements EPA issued a guidance memorandum2 on August 18, 2004 which outlines the criteria for 5% increment of progress plans. In essence, the guidance requires the following:

1. A 5% emission reduction in ozone precursor emissions based off of the 2002 inventory; 2. Credit is not allowed from emission reduction measures already in the SIP as of 2002; 3. The emission reductions must occur by 2007; 4. Reductions must be VOC, NOx, or some combination of these 17 that equals 5% in total; and, 5. NOx reductions can be obtained from within a 200 km area outside the nonattainment area, and VOC reductions from 100 km outside the area.

The first part of such plans is a demonstration that a 5% reduction will occur by 2007, and will be due to creditable measures.

5% Emission Reduction Calculation, Step 1 The first step in this calculation is the establishment of a 2002 emissions baseline. Although EPA's August 18, 2004 guidance allows States to use EPA's draft 2002 National Emissions Inventory ( NEI) for the 2002 baseline, Maine DEP provided a better 2002 emissions baseline by developing their own 2002 inventory. This inventory includes better activity data in many instances than what is available in EPA's NEI. As discussed above, Maine DEP's 2002 emissions inventory was prepared, as is the NEI, at the full county level. For the reasons outlined above, EPA believes this is a reasonable and appropriate emissions baseline. Maine's 2002 inventory of ozone precursors for the full 3 county area is shown below in Table 8 by major source category.

Table 8: 2002 Anthropogenic Emissions for the Portland Area Major Source Category 2002 VOC Emissions ( tpsd) 2002 NOx Emissions ( tpsd)

Point 3.29 13.08 Area 23.65 1.89 On road 30.94 61.20 Off road 16.59 13.23 Commercial Marine, Rail, and Aircraft 0.45 2.33 Total 74.90 91.70 5% Emission Reduction Calculation, Step 2 EPA's August 18, 2004 5% plan guidance allows the 5% reduction to be made from only VOC emission reductions, only NOx reductions, or from a combination of VOC and NOx reductions which in total equal 5%. Maine DEP chose to demonstrate it could meet the 5% emission reduction requirement by relying exclusively on VOC emission reductions. Therefore, it's emission reduction 18 obligation is calculated as follows: 0.05 * 74.90 = 3.75 tpsd of VOC emissions.

5% Emission Reduction Calculation, Step 3 The third step in the 5% calculation is to develop a 2007 inventory that reflects growth and controls from measures already in the SIP or expected to occur due to federal measures. Maine DEP prepared its 2007 inventory for the three county Portland area by using several different resources. For the point and area source categories, Maine DEP used EPA's Economic Growth and Analysis System ( EGAS) to obtain growth factors. Based upon comments from EPA Region 1, Maine DEP revised it's 2002 summer day estimate for the largest NOx point source in the area, Central Maine Power. This source operates as a peaking unit, and so it's pattern of operation, and therefore emissions, are erratic. The revised 2002 typical summer day estimate was derived by determining the total emissions during summer weekdays when the facility was producing power, then dividing that value by the number of weekday's in operation. Maine DEP used hourly emissions data available from EPA's acid rain program to make this calculation. 2002 summertime emissions were determined to be 5.53 tpsd. Maine DEP then used an EGAS growth factor to project this revised 2002 emissions estimate to 2007 for this source. During development of draft versions of the 5% plan, Maine DEP had intended to use NOx emission reductions from this source to meet part of it's emission reduction obligation. However, as the final plan only uses VOC emission reductions.

Maine DEP used EPA's Nonroad model to estimate emissions for this sector for 2002 and 2007, as the model contains both growth and control factors which reflect the phase in of EPA's various emission standards for nonroad equipment.

For on road mobile sources, Maine DEP projected emission to 2007 using a forecast of vehicle miles traveled provided by the State's Department of Transportation.

Table 9 below shows Maine's projected 2007 emissions inventory for VOCs; NOx is not shown as Maine's final plan relies exclusively on VOC emission reductions.

Table 9: 2002 and 2007 VOC Emissions by Major Source Category Major Source Category 2002 VOC Emissions ( tpsd) 2007 VOC Emissions ( tpsd)

Point 3.29 4.0 19 Area 23.65 25.52 On road 30.94 20.48 Off road 16.59 14.21 Commercial Marine, Rail, and Aircraft 0.45 0.5 Total 74.90 64.73 5% Emission Reduction Calculation, Step 4 In Step 4, the required 5% emission reduction of 3.75 tpsd is subtracted from the projected 2007 emission inventory of 64.73 tpsd, establishing an emissions target level of 60.98 tpsd for 2007. Maine's 5% plan demonstrates that it will meet this target by reducing the area source inventory by 4.47 tpsd, taking it from 25.52 tpsd down to 21.05. This will reduce the overall inventory similarly, taking it from 64.73 tpsd to 60.26 tpsd, which is 0.72 tpsd below the target level of emissions.

5% Emission Reduction Calculation, Step 5 The final step in the 5% calculation is to ensure that the 2007 projected, controlled inventory is 5% lower than the 2002 emissions baseline. This step is required because in a rapidly growing area, a large increment of growth could conceivably overwhelm the 5% emission reduction, and the reductions from already scheduled SIP and Federal control programs. This is not the case in Maine, however, as the projected, controlled emission level of 60.26 tpsd is almost 20% lower than 2002 emissions.

III. B. Emission Control Measures that will Achieve the 5% Reduction Maine DEP's 5% plan demonstrates that it will achieve the required level of emission reductions due to adoption of four VOC emission control measures that are based on model rules developed by the OTC. The four rules apply to small source solvent cleaners ( degreasers), architectural and industrial maintenance ( AIM) coatings, consumer and commercial products, and mobile equipment repair and refinishing. Each of these rules, and the emission reductions anticipated from them, are discussed below.

Chapter 130 Solvent Cleaning rule This regulation establishes requirements for testing, evaluating, and limiting VOCs from solvent cleaning machines and sets minimum requirements for equipment and operation standards in order to 3E. H. Pechan and Associates, " Control Measures Development Support Analysis of Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules," March 31, 2001.

20 reduce VOC emissions. Maine used a control factor of 66% as recommended in a report by E. H. Pechan and associates3 in work done for th Ozone Transport Commission. Facilities were required to comply with the rule by January 1, 2005, and Maine DEP expects it to produce 2.57 tpsd in emission reductions. EPA approved this rule into the state's SIP in a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2005 ( 70 FR 30367).

Chapter 151; AIM Coatings rule Chapter 151 establishes limits for emissions of VOCs from 51 AIM coating categories. Compliance with the rule will be required as of January 1, 2006, and Maine DEP expects it to produce 0.99 tpsd in emission reductions. However, Maine DEP will need to adjust the credit claimed for AIM reductions downward to reflect recent revisions to it's Chapter 151 rule. Specifically, the proposal contains a new, less stringent, emission limit for interior wood clear and semitransparent stains. The proposal also includes a less stringent 2006 emission limit for varnishes ( although by 2011 varnishes are required to meet the same limit as in the existing rule). These revisions will impact the emission reductions Maine achieves from the implementation of Chapter 151 by 2007. However, given that Maine's 5% Plan currently includes 0.72 tpsd of surplus credits, it appears that, even with these adjustments, Maine will be able to meet its 5% Plan target.

Additionally, in the August 31, 2005 Federal Register ( 70 FR 51694) EPA published a notice soliciting comments, data and information with regard to calculation of emission reductions from AIM coating rules. Therefore, future adjustments may also need to be made to Maine's credit claim from this rule. However, as mentioned above Maine's four VOC limiting rules achieve surplus emission reductions beyond what is required to meet the 5% emission reduction obligation, and so it is unlikely that such adjustment would inhibit Maine's ability to meet it's 5% emission reduction target.

Chapter 152; Consumer and Commercial Products rule This regulation limits emissions of VOC from consumer products by establishing emission limits for consumer product source categories. Compliance with the rule was required by May 1, 2005, and Maine DEP expects it to produce 0.72 tpsd in emission reductions in the three county area. 21 III. D Chapter 153; Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing rule This regulation limits emissions of VOCs from mobile equipment refinishing and repair facilities by limiting the VOC content of coatings, requiring the use of high efficiency coating application systems, and through work practice standards. Maine used a control factor of 38% as recommended in the previously mentioned report by E. H. Pechan. This 38% emission reduction is above and beyond the emission reductions achieved by an earlier federal rule from this sector. Facilities were required to comply with the rule by January 1, 2005, and Maine DEP expects it to produce 0.19 tpsd in emission reductions in the three county area. EPA approved this rule into the state's SIP in a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2005 ( 70 FR 30367).

Transportation Conformity Budget Maine's 5% increment of progress plan contains projected, controlled emission levels for on road mobile sources for 2007. Although the 15% plan also contains projected, controlled emission levels, they are for 2005, and are geographically matched to the full county Portland one hour nonattainment area. EPA revoked the one hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005. Therefore, the on road mobile source VOC and NOx emissions estimates for 2007 contained in Maine's 5% increment of progress plan will establish a transportation conformity budget, but the 2005 on road mobile estimates in the 15% plan will not.

Although Maine DEP prepared it's base year and future year inventories at the full county level, the state included in it's 5% plan a 2007 emission estimate for on road mobile sources for the exact geographic area that comprises the Portland 8 hour nonattainment area. These 2007 emission estimates establish transportation conformity budgets, and they are as follows: for VOCs, 20.115 tpsd, and for NOx, 39.893 tpsd.

In the August 30, 2005 Federal Register ( 70 FR 51353) EPA published a notice of adequacy determination for the above transportation conformity budgets. These budgets were calculated in accordance with standard EPA methods, and should be approved into the State's SIP along with the 5% increment of progress plan.

IV. Recommended Actions The Maine DEP has submitted 15% and 5% rate of progress plans, 2002, 2005, and 2007 emission inventories, and transportation conformity budgets for 2007 for VOC and NOx for the Portland 8 hour ozone nonattainment area that were prepared in accordance with EPA methods and guidance. I recommend that they be approved 22 into the State's SIP via traditional notice and comment rulemaking.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6499-6500]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2602]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

China 9D Construction Group; Order of Suspension of Trading

February 2, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
China 9D Construction Group because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2007.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for
the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on February 2, 2011, through 11:59 p.m.
EST on February 15, 2011.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2602 Filed 2-2-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 OMB No. 2050 0068 Approval expires: xx/ xx/ xxxx Notification for Underground Storage Tanks State Agency Name and Address: STATE USE ONLY ID NUMBER:

DATE RECEIVED:

TYPE OF NOTIFICATION DATE ENTERED INTO COMPUTER:

G A. NEW FACILITY G B. AMENDED G C. CLOSURE DATA ENTRY CLERK INITIALS:

_____ Number of tanks at facility _____ Number of continuation sheets attached OWNER WAS CONTACTED TO CLARIFY RESPONSES, COMMENTS:

INSTRUCTIONS AND GENERAL INFORMATION Please type or print in ink. Also, be sure you have signatures in ink for sections VIII and XI. Complete a notification form for each location containing underground storage tanks. If more than 5 tanks are owned at this location, you may photocopy pages 3 through 5 and use them for additional tanks.

The primary purpose of this notification program is to locate and evaluate underground storage tank systems ( USTs) that store or have stored petroleum or hazardous substances. The information you provide will be based on reasonably available records, or in the absence of such records, your knowledge or recollection.

Federal law requires UST owners to use this notification form for all USTs storing regulated substances that are brought into use after May 8, 1986, or USTs in the ground as of May 8, 1986 that have stored regulated substances at any time since January 1, 1974. The information requested is required by Section 9002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), as amended.

Who Must Notify? Section 9002 of RCRA, as amended, requires owners of USTs that store regulated substances ( unless exempted) to notify designated State or local agencies of the existence of their USTs. " Owner" is defined as:

° In the case of an UST in use on November 8, 1984, or brought into use after that date, any person who owns an UST used for storage, use, or dispensing of regulated substances; or ° In the case of an UST in use before November 8, 1984, but no longer in use on that date, any person who owned the UST immediately before its discontinuation.

Also, if the State so requires, any facility that has made any changes to facility information or UST system status, must submit a notification form ( only amended information needs to be included).

What USTs Are Included? An UST system is defined as any one or combination of tanks that ( 1) is used to contain an accumulation of regulated substances, and ( 2) whose volume ( including connected underground piping) is 10% or more beneath the ground. Regulated USTs store petroleum or hazardous substances ( see the following " What Substances Are Covered"). What Tanks Are Excluded From Notification?

Tanks removed from the ground before May 8, 1986; ° Farm or residential tanks of 1,100 gallons or less capacity storing motor fuel for noncommercial purposes; ° Tanks storing heating oil for use on the premises where stored; ° Septic tanks; ° Pipeline facilities ( including gathering lines) regulated under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, or the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, or which is an intrastate pipeline facility regulated under State laws; ° Surface impoundments, pits, ponds, or lagoons; ° Storm water or waste water collection systems; ° Flow through process tanks; ° Liquid traps or associated gathering lines directly related to oil or gas production and gathering operations; ° Tanks on or above the floor of underground areas, such as basements or tunnels; ° Tanks with a capacity of 110 gallons or less.

What Substances Are Covered? The notification requirements apply to USTs containing petroleum or certain hazardous substances. Petroleum includes gasoline, used oil, diesel fuel, crude oil or any fraction thereof which is liquid at standard conditions of temperature and pressure ( 60 degrees Fahrenheit and 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute). Hazardous substances are those found in Section 101 ( 14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ( CERCLA), with the exception of those substances regulated as hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA.

Where To Notify? Send completed forms to:

When To Notify? 1. Owners of USTs in use or that have been taken out of operation after January 1, 1974, but still in the ground, must notify by May 8, 1986. 2. Owners who bring USTs into use after May 8, 1986, must notify within 30 days of bringing the UST into use. 3. If the State requires notification of any amendments to facility, send information to State agency immediately.

Penalties: Any owner who knowingly fails to notify or submits false information shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $ 11,000 for each tank for which notification is not given or for which false information is given.

I. OWNERSHIP OF UST( s) II. LOCATION OF UST( s)

Owner Name ( Corporation, Individual, Public Agency, or Other Entity) If required by State, give the geographic location of USTs by degrees, minutes, and seconds. Example: Latitude 42

36' 12" N, Longitude 85

24' 17" W Latitude ________________ Longitude ________________

Street Address Facility Name or Company Site Identifier, as applicable County Q If address is the same as in Section I, check the box and proceed to section III. If address is different, enter address below: Street Address County City State Zip Code Phone Number ( Include Area Code) City State Zip Code EPA Form 7530 1 ( Rev. 11 98) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. Page 1 of 5 Previous editions may be used while supplies last. G G United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 Form Approved. OMB No. 2050 0068 Notification for Underground Storage Tanks III. TYPE OF OWNER IV. INDIAN COUNTRY G Federal Government G State Government G Commercial G Local Government G Private USTs are located on land within an Indian Reservation or on trust lands outside reservation boundaries.

USTs are owned by a Native American nation or tribe. Tribe or Nation where USTs are located:

V. TYPE OF FACILITY G Gas Station G Petroleum Distributor G Air Taxi ( Airline)

G Aircraft Owner G Auto Dealership G Railroad G Federal  Non Military G Federal  Military G Industrial G Contractor G Trucking/ Transport G Utilities G Residential G Farm G Other ( Explain) _____________________________

VI. CONTACT PERSON IN CHARGE OF TANKS Name: Job Title: Address: Phone Number ( Include Area Code):

VII. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY GI have met the financial responsibility requirements ( in accordance with 40 CFR Subpart H) by using the following mechanisms:

Check All that Apply G Self Insurance G Commercial Insurance G Risk Retention Group G Local Government Financial Test G Guarantee G Surety Bond G Letter of Credit G Bond Rating Test G State Funds G Trust Fund G Other Method ( describe here)

______________________________________

VIII. CERTIFICATION ( Read and sign after completing ALL SECTIONS of this notification form)

I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in Sections I through XI of this notification form and all attached documents, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete.

Name and official title of owner or owner's authorized representative ( Print) Signature Date Signed Paperwork Reduction Act Notice The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D. C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.

EPA Form 7530 1 ( Rev. 11 98) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. Page 2 of 5 Previous editions may be used while supplies last. United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 Form Approved. OMB No. 2050 0068 Notification for Underground Storage Tanks IX. DESCRIPTION OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS ( Complete for all tanks and piping at this location.)

Tank Identification Number Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No.

1. Status of Tank ( check only one) Currently In Use Temporarily Closed Permanently Closed G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G 2. Date of Installation ( month/ year)

3. Estimated Total Capacity ( gallons)

4. Material of Construction ( check all that apply)

Asphalt Coated or Bare Steel Cathodically Protected Steel Coated and Cathodically Protected Steel Composite ( Steel Clad with Fiberglass)

Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic Lined Interior Excavation Liner Double Walled Polyethylene Tank Jacket Concrete Unknown If Other, please specify here Check box if tank has ever been repaired G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G 5. Piping Material ( check all that apply) Bare Steel Galvanized Steel Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic Copper Cathodically Protected Double Walled Secondary Containment Unknown Other, please specify G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G 6. Piping Type " Safe" Suction ( no valve at tank)

( Check all that apply) " U. S." Suction ( valve at tank)

Pressure Gravity Feed Check box if piping has ever been repaired G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G EPA Form 7530 1 ( Rev. 11 98) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. Page 3 of 5 Previous editions may be used while supplies last. United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 Form Approved. OMB No. 2050 0068 Notification for Underground Storage Tanks Tank Identification Number Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No.

7. Substance Currently Stored ( or last Gasoline stored in the case of closed tanks) Diesel ( Check all that apply) Gasohol Kerosene Heating Oil Used Oil If Other, please specify here G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G Hazardous Substance CERCLA name and/ or CAS number G G G G G Mixture of Substances Please specify here G G G G G 8. Release Detection ( check all that apply)

Manual tank gauging Tank tightness testing Inventory Control Automatic tank gauging Vapor monitoring Groundwater monitoring Interstitial monitoring Automatic line leak detectors Line tightness testing No release detection required ( such as some types of suction piping, emergency generator tanks or field constructed tanks)

Other method allowed by implementing agency ( such as SIR) TANK G G G G G G G G G PIPE G G G G G G G G G G G TANK G G G G G G G G G PIPE G G G G G G G G G G G TANK G G G G G G G G G PIPE G G G G G G G G G G G TANK G G G G G G G G G PIPE G G G G G G G G G G G TANK G G G G G G G G G PIPE G G G G G G G G G G G Please specify other method here 9. Spill and Overfill Protection Overfill device installed Spill device installed G G G G G G G G G G EPA Form 7530 1 ( Rev. 11 98) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. Page 4 of 5 Previous editions may be used while supplies last. United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 Form Approved. OMB No. 2050 0068 Notification for Underground Storage Tanks Tank Identification Number Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No. Tank No.

X. CLOSURE OR CHANGE IN SERVICE 1. Closure or Change in Service Estimated date the UST was last used for storing regulated substances ( month/ day/ year)

Check box if this is a change in service G G G G G 2. Tank Closure Estimated date tank closed ( month/ day/ year)

( check all that apply below)

Tank was removed from ground Tank was closed in ground Tank filled with inert material Describe the inert fill material here G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G 3. Site Assessment Check box if the site assessment was completed Check box if evidence of a leak was detected G G G G G G G G G G XI. CERTIFICATION OF INSTALLATION ( COMPLETE FOR UST SYSTEMS INSTALLED AFTER DECEMBER 22, 1988)

Installer Of Tank And Piping Must Check All That Apply:

Installer certified by tank and piping manufacturers Installer certified or licensed by the implementing agency Installation inspected by a registered engineer Installation inspected and approved by implementing agency Manufacturer's installation checklists have been completed Another method allowed by State agency If so, please specify here G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G Signature of UST Installer Certifying Proper Installation of UST System Name Signature Date Position Company EPA Form 7530 1 ( Rev. 11 98) Electronic and paper versions acceptable. Page 5 of 5 Previous editions may be used while supplies last


[Federal Register: December 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 74309-74310]
[DOCID:fr15de05-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-220-019]

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of
Negotiated Rate Agreement

December 7, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 30, 2005, Great Lakes Gas Transmission
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) filed for a disclosure, a
transportation service agreement pursuant to Great Lakes' Rate Schedule
FT entered into by Great Lakes and Tenaska Marketing Ventures (Tenaska)
(FT Service Agreement). The FT Service Agreement filed reflects a
negotiated rate arrangement commencing December 1, 2005.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov
.

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7361 Filed 12-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 244 (Thursday, December 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72976-72978]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27823]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-D-5606]

Arthroscopy Pump Tubing Sets Intended for Multiple Patient Use--
Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions; Guidance for Industry and
Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance entitled ``Arthroscopy Pump Tubing
Sets Intended for Multiple Patient Use--Premarket Notification (510(k))
Submissions.'' FDA has developed this guidance document to assist in
the preparation of premarket notification submissions (510(k)) for
arthroscopy pump tubing sets intended for multiple patient use. This
guidance outlines the device design considerations, risk mitigation
strategies, and testing recommendations for arthroscopy pump tubing
sets intended for multiple patient use. This guidance also clarifies
the terminology used to describe arthroscopy pump tubing sets intended
for multiple patient use.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on December 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and

identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in
``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-D-5606 for ``Arthroscopy Pump Tubing Sets Intended for
Multiple Patient Use--Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions.''
Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document entitled
``Arthroscopy Pump Tubing Sets Intended for Multiple Patient Use--
Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions'' to the Office of Policy,
Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist
that office in processing your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurence Coyne, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4512, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry and
FDA staff entitled ``Arthroscopy Pump Tubing Sets Intended for Multiple
Patient Use--Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions.'' FDA has
developed this guidance document to assist in the preparation of
premarket notification submissions (510(k)) for arthroscopy pump tubing
sets intended for multiple patient use. These devices are designed to
deliver irrigation fluid to the surgical site, such as knee, shoulder,
hip, elbow, ankle, and wrist joint cavities, during arthroscopic
procedures. In arthroscopic procedures, clinicians often use a single
source of irrigation fluid for multiple patients without replacing the
source of irrigation fluid or replacing/reprocessing the irrigation
tubing system between patients. This practice may increase the risk of
cross-contamination between patients and subsequent iatrogenic
infection because the irrigation system can become contaminated with
patient fluids that travel back through the irrigation tubing
(``backflow''). FDA has received reports of backflow of patient fluids
which raises the question of potential for disease transmission when
using irrigation and tubing systems in such a manner on multiple
patients.
    This guidance is intended to provide recommendations for
information to include in premarket notifications (510(k)s) for
arthroscopy pump tubing sets intended for multiple patient use. This
guidance outlines device design considerations, risk mitigation
strategies, and testing recommendations for these devices, and
clarifies the terminology used to describe arthroscopy pump tubing sets
intended for multiple patient use.
    A notice of availability of the draft guidance appeared in the
Federal Register of January 28, 2020 (85 FR 4997). FDA considered a
comment received and revised the guidance to add a reference to an
applicable FDA guidance, ``Applying Human Factors and Usability
Engineering to Medical Devices.''
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Arthroscopy Pump Tubing Sets Intended for
Multiple Patient Use--Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions.'' It
does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA
or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability
for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents
is available at https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/guidance-documents-medical-devices-and-radiation-emitting-products. This guidance document is also
available at https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents. Persons unable to
download an electronic copy of ``Arthroscopy Pump Tubing Sets Intended
for Multiple Patient Use--Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions''
may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an
electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1500066
and complete title to identify the guidance you are requesting.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no new collection of information, it
does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information.
Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not
required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of
information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections
of information in the following FDA regulations have been approved by
OMB as listed in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           OMB  Control
          21 CFR part                     Topic                No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
807, subpart E.................  Premarket notification       0910-0120
800, 801, and 809..............  Medical Device               0910-0485
                                  Labeling Regulations.
820............................  Current Good                 0910-0073
                                  Manufacturing
                                  Practice (CGMP);
                                  Quality System (QS)
                                  Regulation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: December 17, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-27823 Filed 12-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P