[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 879]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00567]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on AIP Acquired Land for
Change of Use From Aeronautical to Non-Aeronautical Use and Lease at
Bainbridge-Decatur County Industrial Airport, Bainbridge, Georgia

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, notice is being given that
the FAA is considering a request from the Bainbridge-Decatur County
Administrator to change approximately 7.62 acres of AIP acquired
airport property located on the northeastern portion of Bainbridge-
Decatur County Industrial Airport from aeronautical use to non-
aeronautical use. The proposed land use is for non-aeronautical lease
and use for the installation of a solar panel farm and access road. The
land is owned and operated by the airport, but not currently in use or
planned for aeronautical use.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports
District Office, Attn: Aimee McCormick, Planning Team Lead, 1701
Columbia Ave., Suite 220, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Alan Thomas, County Administrator, Decatur
County at the following address: P.O. Box 726, Bainbridge, GA 39818.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aimee McCormick, Planning Team Lead,
Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 220,
Atlanta, GA 30337-2747,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The application may be reviewed
in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the
Decatur County Administrator to release approximately 7.62 acres of AIP
acquired property at the Bainbridge-Decatur County Industrial Airport.
The property will be leased with intent to install a solar panel farm.
The location of the land relative to existing or anticipated aircraft
noise contours greater than 65 ldn are not considered to be an issue.
The proceeds from the lease of this property will be used for airport
purposes. The proposed use of this property is considered a ``limited
and unusual circumstance'' and therefore compatible with airport
operations.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request,
notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the
Bainbridge-Decatur County Industrial Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on December 27, 2018.
Rusty Nealis,
Acting Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2019-00567 Filed 1-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35253-35255]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15091]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 385

Hazardous Materials Safety Permit (HMSP) Program: Amendment to
Enforcement Policy

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

ACTION: Amendment to enforcement policy.

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

SUMMARY: Section 33014 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21) required the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) to conduct a study and submit a report to Congress
on the implementation of the DOT Hazardous Materials Safety Permit
(HMSP) program. DOT completed the study and submitted a report to
Congress in March 2014. This document announces implementation of two
of the six recommendations in the report to Congress: Fully utilize the
Safety Measurement System (SMS) as part of the HMSP review process and
institute an ongoing requirement to conduct compliance reviews for HMSP
motor carriers with insufficient data to utilize SMS. These
recommendations are being implemented under the existing Safety Fitness
Procedure regulations. FMCSA will use SMS scores to provide enhanced
oversight of HMSP holders, to identify poor-performing carriers for a
safety fitness compliance review, and to provide grounds for suspension
or revocation. Both of these processes afford the motor carrier the
right to administrative review and the opportunity to present
corrective action.

DATES: The changes to the enforcement policy will take effect on August
18, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul Bomgardner,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Chief of the Hazardous Materials Division,
Office of Enforcement and Compliance, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office
hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except
for Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 1, 2005, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) began the HMSP program for intrastate, interstate, and foreign
motor carriers transporting specified types and amounts of particularly
dangerous hazardous material. HMSPs are required for a small subset of
motor carriers transporting the following DOT-regulated hazardous
material:
    1. Highway Route Controlled Quantity (HRCQ) of a Class 7
(radioactive) material;
    2. More than 55 pounds of a Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 Explosive, or
an amount of a Division 1.5 material requiring placarding;
    3. Certain Poison by Inhalation Hazard (PIH) materials, including
anhydrous ammonia, and
    4. Compressed or refrigerated liquefied methane or liquefied
natural gas in packaging equal to or greater than 3,500 water gallons.
    FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS)
contains records for approximately 525,000 active interstate motor
carriers operating in the United States. MCMIS records show almost
11,000 interstate and intrastate motor carriers that have had an
inspection indicating that they transport hazardous material requiring
placards.\1\ Approximately 1,500 motor carriers possess an HMSP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See: 49 CFR part 172 Subpart F--Placarding
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The HMSP program is based on the premise that carriers transporting
certain amounts of particularly dangerous hazardous material must
maintain a higher minimum level of safety in their operations than
other carriers and must additionally demonstrate compliance with the
critical regulatory requirements in the DOT Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR), 49 CFR parts 171-180, and Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSR), 49 CFR parts 350-399. Under FMCSA's current
program, in order to obtain or renew a HMSP, a carrier must demonstrate
that it meets the following regulatory requirements specified in the
FMCSR at 49 CFR 385.407 and 387.7:
    1. Maintains the minimum level of financial responsibility required
by 49 CFR part 387.
    2. Maintains current Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) registration.
    3. Certifies that it has security and communications plans that
comply with 49 CFR part 172 of the HMR and 49 CFR part 385 of the
FMCSR.
    4. Is assigned a ``satisfactory'' safety fitness rating.
    5. Additionally, at the time of initial application and renewal,
the carrier's crash and inspection records in MCMIS for the prior 12
month period may not exceed the threshold rate established by FMCSA,
based on crash and out-of-service rates for the hazardous material
motor carrier industry, indicating that the carrier has:
    a. A crash rate in the ``top 30 percent of the national average,''
or
    b. A driver, vehicle, hazardous material, or total out-of-service
(OOS) rate in the ``top 30 percent of the national average.''
    As stated above, section 33014 of MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141, div. C,
title III, 126 Stat. 405, 840 (July 6, 2012) (set out as a note to 49
U.S.C. 5109) required the Secretary to conduct a study and submit a
report to Congress on the implementation of the DOT's HMSP program.
Congress further directed the Secretary to include in the study a
review of ``actions the Secretary could implement to improve the
program, including whether to provide opportunities for an additional
level of fitness review prior to the denial, revocation, or suspension
of a safety permit.'' Finally, section 33014 required the Secretary to
institute a rulemaking to make any necessary improvements to the HMSP
program or publish in the Federal Register the Secretary's
justification for why a rulemaking is not necessary.
    DOT completed the study and submitted its ``Hazardous Materials
Safety Permit Program Implementation Report'' (HMSP Report) to Congress
in March 2014. This notice announces implementation of two of the six
recommendations in the report to Congress: (1) Fully utilize the Safety
Measurement System (SMS) as part of the HMSP review process and (2)
institute an ongoing requirement to conduct comprehensive
investigations for HMSP motor carriers with insufficient data to
utilize SMS. This Federal Register publication provides notice of the
Agency's revised interpretation of certain regulations in 49 CFR part
385, subpart E, in accordance with congressional directives and the
recommendations in the report to Congress.
    On December 16, 2014, Congress passed the 2015 Omnibus

Appropriations law entitled, ``Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2015,'' Pub. L. 113-235, 128 Stat. 2130 (Dec. 16,
2014) which restricts FMCSA's use of appropriated funds ``to deny an
application to renew a Hazardous Materials Safety Program permit for a
motor carrier based on that carrier's Hazardous Materials Out-of-
Service rate, unless the carrier has the opportunity to submit a
written description of corrective actions taken, and other
documentation the carrier wishes the Secretary to consider, including
submitting a corrective action plan, and the Secretary determines the
actions or plan is insufficient to address the safety concerns that
resulted in that Hazardous Materials Out-of- Service rate.'' Pub. L.
113-235, div. K, Title I, Sec.  134. By using SMS scores to identify a
HMSP holder for a safety fitness review, the Agency, while complying
with this congressional limitation, will ensure that transportation of
the hazardous materials specified in 49 CFR 385.403 does not present an
undue safety risk to the public.
    FMCSA provides notice herein that the Agency is distinguishing the
requirements for issuance of an initial HMSP as specified in 49 CFR
385.407, from the requirements for HMSP renewal, as specified in 49 CFR
385.419. Distinguishing these requirements, as discussed below, enables
the Agency to more actively monitor an HMSP holder's safety and
compliance status, while providing more flexibility to HMSP holders
attempting to correct identified deficiencies. Pursuant to the 2015
spending restriction, the Agency is no longer denying HMSP renewals
based on a carrier's unacceptable hazardous materials out-of-service
rate. Upon the effective date of this notice, the Agency will no longer
deny a HMSP holder's application for renewal of its HMSP based on a
crash rate, driver, vehicle, hazardous material or total out-of-service
rate that is in the top, or worst-performing, 30 percent of the
national average.
    New applicants for HMSPs, which includes any applicant that is not
a current HMSP holder, and holders of temporary HMSPs (T-HMSP) will
continue to be subject to the established crash, driver, vehicle,
hazardous material or total out-of-service threshold rates in order to
qualify for the initial issuance of a HMSP. The requirement that new
applicants not have a crash rate or a driver, vehicle, hazardous
material, or total out-of-service (OOS) rate for the prior 12 months,
as shown below, remains unchanged:
    a. A crash rate in the ``top 30 percent of the national average,''
or
    b. A driver, vehicle, hazardous material or total out-of-service
(OOS) rate in the ``top 30 percent of the national average.''
    Pursuant to the interpretive rule announced in this Notice, non-
temporary HMSP holders will no longer be required to have crash and OOS
rates that are below the ``30 percent threshold'' at the time of the
HMSP holder's two-year renewal. Rather, FMCSA will continually monitor
these HMSP holders using SMS analysis as a basis for a compliance
review referral or proposed revocation or suspension based on the
criteria listed in 49 CFR 385.421. HMSP holders will continue to be
subject to the renewal provisions in 49 CFR 385.419, which require the
carrier to submit its biennial update.
    The first recommendation in the HMSP Report to Congress was for
FMCSA to fully utilize the Agency's SMS to provide continuous
monitoring of HMSP holders' safety performance in order to determine a
carrier's continuing suitability to retain or renew a non-temporary
HMSP. Carriers applying for a six-month T-HMSP will be subject to the
requirements for initial issuance of a HMSP in Sec.  385.407. Temporary
HMSPs are issued when a motor carrier meets all of the qualifications
in Sec.  385.407 except for having a safety rating assigned. If the
carrier has no safety rating, the T-HMSP is issued, and the motor
carrier is assigned for a comprehensive investigation within six months
of the FMCSA field staff being notified. FMCSA may extend the T-HMSP
for two months, when necessary due to the Agency's inability to
schedule a comprehensive investigation during the initial six-month
timeframe. Once the carrier receives a comprehensive investigation, and
subsequently is assigned a satisfactory safety rating, the carrier is
eligible for a full, non-temporary HMSP subject to the initial
requirements in Sec.  385.407. Once the non-temporary HMSP is issued,
the Agency will place the carrier under the continuous monitoring
program described herein.
    Non-temporary HMSP carriers will continue to be subject to the
current intervention thresholds for all carriers of placarded hazardous
material under the seven Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement
Categories (BASIC) in SMS. These intervention thresholds are listed
below:
     60th percentile for Unsafe Driving, Hours of Service
Compliance, and Crash Indicator;
     75th percentile for Driver Fitness, Controlled Substances/
Alcohol, and Vehicle Maintenance; and
     80th percentile for Hazardous Material Compliance.
For carriers that have a non-temporary HMSP, FMCSA will review the
permit holder's SMS scores monthly to determine if the carrier has met
or exceeded intervention thresholds for either the Hazardous Materials
Compliance BASIC (HM BASIC) or met or exceeded thresholds for any two
of the other BASICs for the preceding two consecutive months. If the
carrier meets or exceeds the HM BASIC or meets or exceeds thresholds of
any other two BASICs over a consecutive two-month period, FMCSA will
identify the carrier for investigation with hazardous material
compliance emphasis. Using the monthly data provides a more powerful
tool for identifying the HMSP carriers that have overall compliance
problems, warranting a comprehensive investigation, or issues in one
particular area of safety performance (i.e., crash rate, driver,
vehicle, or hazardous material). A comprehensive investigation will
entail a full-rated review that will also determine whether the carrier
meets the safety fitness requirement in 49 CFR 385.421(a)(3).
    The SMS approach provides a strengthened, continuous monitoring
process for HMSP holders, which merit heightened oversight and
monitoring due to the dangerous nature of the materials they transport.
SMS monitoring further allows the Agency to expeditiously identify
carrier problems and better focus on specific areas that the carrier
must address immediately, in order to avoid potential suspension or
revocation of its HMSP under 49 CFR 385.421(a).
    If a carrier fails to comply with the applicable regulations, or an
order issued under those regulations, indicating that the carrier is
not fit to transport hazardous material that requires a HMSP, such
conduct could similarly trigger a proposed suspension or revocation
under Sec.  385.421(a)(5), (6), (7), (8), or (10). It should be noted
that a proposed suspension or revocation under 385.421(a)(5) would be
based on serious instances of non-compliance, a less than satisfactory
safety rating, or loss of operating authority. The proposed suspension
or revocation would be subject to the 30-day notice requirement in
Sec.  385.421(c)(2), and the carrier would have an opportunity to take
corrective action and/or to apply for administrative review under Sec.
385.423 before FMCSA took final action.

    If a carrier's non-temporary HMSP is denied, suspended or revoked
pursuant to Sec.  385.421, the carrier will have various options for
seeking administrative review and providing evidence of corrective
action. If the suspension or revocation is based on a less than
satisfactory safety rating, the carrier may request administrative
review of the proposed rating under Sec.  385.15, or may request
upgrade of a proposed safety rating based on corrective action under
Sec.  385.17, as provided in Sec.  385.423(a). The carrier may seek
administrative review of other grounds for a proposed suspension or
revocation as provided in Sec.  385.423(c). A proposed suspension or
revocation under Sec.  385.421(c)(2) will not become effective during
the pendency of a request for administrative review that is timely-
filed during the 30-day timeframe from the date of service of the
written notice of proposed suspension or revocation. The 30-day
effective date and the tolling of this date by a request for
administrative review of proposed suspensions or revocations that are
not related to a less than satisfactory safety rating allows the
carrier time to take and submit evidence of corrective action.
    The second recommendation in the HMSP Report to Congress was for
FMCSA to institute an ongoing requirement to more closely monitor HMSP
carriers with insufficient SMS data--that is, HMSP carriers that rarely
undergo roadside inspections and have a safety rating over 4 years old.
Because of the lack of information and oversight on these carriers,
FMCSA will conduct comprehensive investigations for HMSP carriers when
the carrier has insufficient data to calculate a percentile in SMS
during any month of the previous 48-month period. HMSP carriers will
not be allowed to operate for more than four years without either
having enough safety performance data to confirm compliance, or having
received a compliance review that results in a satisfactory rating. By
instituting a specific 4-year investigation cycle for non-temporary
HMSP carriers with insufficient safety data, these carriers will become
subject to increased oversight.
    These changes will be effective August 18, 2015.

    Issued on: June 8, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-15091 Filed 6-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2 0 7 0  0 0 3 3 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. O Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. O Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes O No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. O Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title TSCA Section 4 Test Rules, Consent Orders, Test Rule Exemptions, and Voluntary Data Submissions 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR # 1139.07 9. Keywords Environmental Protection; Hazardous Substances; Reporting Requirements 10. Abstract This data collection program is designed to provide the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) with necessary test data to predict the probable impacts on human health or the environment of chemicals which may present an unreasonable risk to which there is substantial and/ or significant exposure or release. This ICR covers one final section 4 Test Rule ( the " OSHA Dermal Absorption" Test Rule), the issuance of three consent orders/ agreement , and the burdens and costs associated with the voluntary component of the high production volume ( HPV) chemical testing program, launched in 1998.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 396 b. Total annual responses 1,425 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 83 % c. Total hours requested 203,014 d. Current OMB inventory 1,182,574 e. Difference  979,560 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment  979,560 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. G Recordkeeping b. G Third party disclosure c. O Reporting 1. O On occasion 2. G Weekly 3. G Monthly 4. G Quarterly 5. O Semi annually 6. O Annually 7. G Biannually 8. G Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

G Yes O No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Angela F. Hofmann, Director, Regulatory Coordination Staff Phone: 202 564 0258 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Angela F. Hofmann, Director Regulatory Coordination Staff Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS) Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


CAIR Replacement Rule

Discussions between CIBO, AF&PA, ACC, Auto Alliance and EPA

April 14, 2009

I. Introduction

	On Tuesday, April 14, 2009, EPA held a meeting/call with the Council of
Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) and other manufacturers that operate
industrial boilers to discuss the CAIR replacement rule. The summary
that follows covers the key issues discussed during the call. More
detailed notes, including a list of all participants in the call, are
being prepared.

II. EPA Opening Comments

	Bill Harnett, OAQPS, began with a short introduction, explaining that
EPA was beginning the process of creating a replacement rule for CAIR.
The Agency is reviewing all options, setting up analyses, and preparing
technical models. The goal is to finalize a replacement rule within two
years.

	The primary objectives are to explore options for the replacement rule
to help states comply with the NAAQS and to reduce interstate transport.
Therefore, EPA has decided that it would be best to start working with
states and stakeholders immediately. EPA has already held a number of
meetings with state groups and would like to hear from stakeholders
about what type of replacement rule would be most practical while also
achieving the required emission reductions. Bill stressed that this is
the beginning of a dialogue process, and that EPA intends to continue
these types of discussions throughout the rule development process.

	This is a chance for the stakeholders to talk to the key EPA staff that
will actually develop and write the rules, as well as the OGC attorneys
assigned to the rule development. Bill stressed that EPA is interested
in hearing the stakeholders' thoughts and concerns. Everything is on the
table as EPA puts together ideas for the new Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, who should arrive within the next couple of weeks.
EPA would like the rule to be as legally defensible as possible, and
stakeholder input will help with the process. Bill said the current
schedule is to have a proposal out by January 2010, and a final rule by
January 2011.

III. CIBO Opening Comments

	Bob Bessette, CIBO, asked that EPA elaborate on what the Agency had
heard about the CAIR replacement rule from the states and other
stakeholders. He noted that CIBO worked closely with the states, often
sharing data and information.

IV. Summary of Past Discussions

	Bill Harnett noted that states have done analyses on industrial boilers
and want EPA to seriously consider including them in a replacement CAIR
rule. NACAA is also interested in including industrial boilers and
cement kilns, as well as any other large sources of SO2 or NOx that EPA
could identify. Most of the modeling had been done by LADCO in a joint
effort with the northeastern states. In general, the regional groups
have not released official positions.  However, all the states
represented in the regional groups have expressed concern that there is
a significant amount of transport that needs to be addressed.

	States have also expressed interest in basing the replacement program
on the newer PM and ozone NAAQS rather than on the 1997 standards. They
indicated a strong preference that the implementation dates for the
replacement CAIR rule correlate with the SIP dates so that the states
can account in their SIPs for the reductions a new interstate rule would
provide.

	Ideas differ among states about contribution levels, thresholds to
trigger inclusion, and levels of control. However, almost every state
agreed that EPA's top priority should be to develop a rule that will
survive legal challenge. Ideas for such a rule ranged from a strictly
command-and-control regime to a rule including trading. States stressed
that a program that gets reductions needs to be in place in time for
them to meet attainment and maintenance deadlines.

	Leslie Hulse, American Chemistry Council, asked EPA which environmental
NGOs it had spoken with and what their overarching points were. Bill
replied that EPA had heard from the National Parks Conservation
Association, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, Natural Resources
Defense Council, the Clean Air Task Force, American Lung Association,
and others. He said the NGOs were focused more on electric utilities and
stressed that older, inefficient units, that continue to operate only
because they have not been forced to make investment decisions, should
be forced to put on controls or shut down. EPA should consider all
authorities available to it such as MACT, NSPS, section 110, and section
112, as well as the different rules that could affect electric
utilities. It should then coordinate rulemakings so as to drive
utilities to invest in cleaner generation facilities.

	NGOs suggested that EPA should also consider CO2 and hazardous air
pollutants beyond mercury in developing a comprehensive plan to address
future electric generation. NGOs agreed with states about the importance
of considering sources beyond EGUs.

	Sam Napolitano, CAMD, stressed that any decisions about future air
policy would be made by the new Assistant Administrator for Air in
consultation with other administration officials. The purpose of these
meetings is to start gathering ideas and information so that staff can
present the new Assistant Administrator with a full range of options.
Sam also noted that EPA would be doing a range of analyses on multiple
source categories and that because an analysis was being done did not
mean sources involved would be included in a future program.

	Sonja Rodman, OGC, noted that under the D.C. Circuit Court decision the
entire CAIR rule had been sent back for reconsideration and that the
Agency is exploring all available options. The replacement rule will do
more than just tinker with the existing CAIR rule. Bill added that EPA
was not expecting a legislative fix of the CAIR rule and that he
anticipated the rulemaking would continue. EPA would prefer a
legislative solution to the issue, preferably something like the Carper
3-P approach, and the Agency will work with Congress if legislation is
proposed.

V. CIBO Presentation

	Sam Napolitano noted that the purpose of the call was for EPA to hear
what CIBO members and other industry representatives think and asked
industry representatives to respond to topics in the agenda EPA had
distributed, and to share thoughts or ideas that may not be on the
agenda.

	John deRuyter, DuPont, presented data outlining the current situation
with respect to industrial sources. He began by noting that EPA's data
show a downward trend for NOx and SO2. Projected emission trends from
2005 forward also show significant reductions in those two pollutants.
He then discussed curves for marginal cost for NOx and SO2 controls
provided in the CAIR Final Rule Federal Register notice. He noted the
line indicating the $1,500 per ton cost effectiveness for NOx at the EPA
limit selected for 2015 as well as the cost effectiveness line on the
SO2 curve at $1800 per ton indicating EPA’s selected SO2 limit of
around 2.6 million tons in 2015.

	He discussed industrial boiler NOx and SO2 control cost estimates and
noted that these calibration points provided an idea of the cost, and
that the data were from a recent OTC meeting and might not be final.
However, the data show that there is a wide range in removal costs, and
that those costs are significantly higher than the highly cost-effective
controls CAIR required EGUs to install. These cost estimates are based
on an assumed 66 percent boiler capacity factor, which CIBO believes, in
many cases, normal operation is at considerably lower capacity factor,
skewing both tons removed and control costs; when the boilers are on
stand-by, the cost per ton increases dramatically.

	John noted that there is a wide range of costs because industrial
facilities, especially older ones, have very little available space,
making retrofit costs site-specific, which in some cases can be very
high. Requiring controls on all facilities would have a major impact on
operations and jobs at some facilities. SNCR and SCR installation and
operation would be very costly, as would FGD and dry FGD. Space would be
a critical issue, particularly with FGD retrofits. Also, scrubbers and
other control devices often make it impossible for companies to sell
some of the combustion byproducts. EPA should consider all of these
costs, not just the cost of control equipment.

	Bill Harnett indicated that there was some internal concern at EPA that
the court decision limited the Agency's ability to consider cost as a
factor when developing a replacement program.  EPA is still grappling
with the decision and the issue of cost-effectiveness.

	John noted that there were many combined-fuel boilers in existence and
that most served an industrial function. Most industrial and commercial
boilers use natural gas and many use byproducts as fuel, such as biomass
generators at pulp and paper mills and various off-gasses from
commercial and chemical processes. He concluded that the data he was
presenting show that NOx and SO2 levels dropped and that further
reductions (primarily from EGUs under CAIR) are expected. Even in its
current state, CAIR has driven reductions, especially in SO2 levels.
Control costs for industrial boilers are considerably higher per ton
than those for EGUs, and the reductions gained by controlling industrial
sources are less certain. Finally, industrial sources have significant
load-variability, which also detracts from the effectiveness of
controls.

	A copy of John’s presentation is submitted as a separate document
with this summary.

VI. Discussion of CIBO Presentation

	Sam Napolitano asked John de Ruyter how confident he was in the data
presented. John noted that the data for the trends came from EPA. He was
less certain of the accuracy of the inventory data. He suggested that
the cost data were reasonable, but reiterated that because costs vary
widely from unit to unit average cost is not necessarily representative
of the actual costs a specific unit would incur. Tim Hunt, American
Forest & Paper Association, noted that AF&PA previously had shared its
best estimates of costs with EPA, which showed that on a per ton basis,
reductions from industrial sources were far more expensive than those
from EGUs. Furthermore, pulp and paper mills are already showing
significant SO2 and NOx reductions.

	Industrial sources across the board are facing challenging economic
conditions, and with the MACT rules already in place further NOx and SO2
rules could be extremely expensive. Tim noted that many industrial
sources are installing co-generation and trying to use by-products such
as biomass and off-gasses for fuel. It makes no sense to place
additional costs on sources which are working to develop green energy.

	Tim noted that EPA modeling shows that pulp and paper emissions are not
significantly impacting regional air quality. Reductions at individual
sources can be achieved through the SIP process and tailored to the
individual situation at the affected source where needed. The CAIR
replacement rule should not include industrial boilers at pulp and paper
mills and should focus on regional transport of emissions from electric
utilities, especially given the current economic situation.

	EPA asked if most facilities were using as much alternative fuel as
possible, and whether facilities were maintaining the ability to switch
back to conventional fuels. Al Clary from Eastman Chemical responded
that chemical manufacturers try to make as little of the off-gasses as
possible because it is a by-product. However, those facilities do use
all of the generated gas.  In response to environmental regulations and
the rising prices of fossil fuels, pulp and paper mills have been
increasing their already high utilization of biomass (currently about
2/3 of total energy usage) and continue to extract more from their
biomass feedstock. Most facilities are able and would want to maintain
the ability to switch back to conventional fuels in the permits due to
concerns about fluctuating energy prices and feedstock availability.

	Bill Harnett asked about how industrial sources were already affected
by MACT and BART. Tim responded that many of the paper facilities went
through BART analysis and were shown not to be contributing to Class 1
nonattainment. Just because a facility was a BART eligible unit did not
mean it ended up with additional controls, which again suggested that a
case-by-case SIP-based approach would be best, not a one-size-fits-all
approach that included all industrial boilers. Bill said that EPA did
not plan to conduct an ICR to gather data, but may rethink this
preliminary decision after consulting with EPA management; for now, EPA
will start with state-level data.

VII. Discussion of Agenda

     1. Baseline

	Given present economic conditions, CIBO members suggested EPA use the
most current data, which would include reductions achieved through the
NOx SIP Call. They suggested that using a future year for creating a
baseline would not work because of the uncertainty of possible CO2
regulations and an ever-changing economic environment.

	Sam Napolitano noted that EPA was exploring the possibility of using a
future-year baseline because additional mobile source controls will come
online in a few years, which should provide large NOx reductions. Also,
there are scrubbers and other control systems that EPA knows will come
online in the near future. Thus, the nature of the problem as it would
appear based on the 2007 data may differ from the problem that will
actually exist when the replacement CAIR program is implemented.

	A CIBO member expressed a preference for using real measured data as a
starting point. EPA could use the 2007 data in conjunction with other
data to help forecast, but it should ground the baseline in data that
had actually been measured. 2007 was the highpoint in terms of the
levels of economic activity. Thus, EPA has a clear picture of the fuel
mix at a time of high energy costs and of the impact of the NOx SIP
Call. EPA should be able to integrate that measured data with other
datasets and forecast under different economic conditions.

     2. Quantifying Significant Contribution

	Sonja Rodman said that significant contribution was a big area to
address, with many options for the replacement rule. For CAIR, EPA
established significant contribution through a two step process. EPA
first conducted air quality modeling to determine which states should be
included in the region and then looked at the cost-effectiveness of
controls to determine significant contribution. EPA established regional
caps and developed the state budgets for each pollutant involved. The
D.C. Circuit Court ruled that EPA had failed to quantify individual
state significant contributions and thus also did not require the
specific state to eliminate its significant contribution. As EPA
develops the new rule it is considering alternate ways to define
significant contribution. The Agency welcomes suggestions.

	CIBO members noted that industrial sources generally have shorter
stacks and so their contribution to transport is inherently less than
sources with taller stacks. They suggested that further modeling would
need to account for this factor. Also, they felt strongly that
cost-effectiveness had to be considered because many industrials cannot
pass along control costs due to global competition and they have higher
cost of capital. In addition, EPA needs to note that site specific
factors for additional controls on industrial boilers are very important
and tend to drive costs up significantly.

	One Industrial member participant expressed concerns that in relying on
modeling EPA would end up requiring similar controls on all the sources
in an area when one source might be having 90 percent of the impact. It
is critical that EPA assess the difference between local emissions and
transport. Industrial sources clearly can have a high level of local
impact, but EPA should not confuse this with transport as the two must
be addressed differently. If EPA is using modeling to justify
reductions, the Agency should allow units to demonstrate that they are
not actually having an impact. Such units should be exempt from
reductions.

3. Remedy

	Tim Smith, OAQPS, raised the issue of remedy: What remedy should be
applied to the quantified significant contribution? What types of
approaches should be considered? Is the trading option practical? Tim
noted that EPA had heard suggestions ranging from a strict
command-and-control program to a trading program and various
combinations of the two. Some states expressed interest in combining
looser standards with a trading program in an effort to leverage the
increased reductions that can be gained by allowing trading.

	In response to a question from Vince Albanese, Fuel Tech, EPA indicated
uncertainty as to whether the court decision made it impossible to
incorporate trading in the replacement program. EPA believes that some
type of trading might be consistent with the decision, but there are
concerns especially about an interstate trading program. Clearly trading
as it existed in the original CAIR would not be included. EPA believes
additional assurances that reductions would take place in nonattainment
areas would need to be provided. EPA is generally supportive of trading
because modeling has shown that it works and provides deeper reductions
at a lower cost.

	John deRuyter suggested an opt-in program for industrial units. CIBO
members in general were supportive of at least some kind of trading.
They expressed concern that an intrastate trading program would not have
enough liquidity to function.

	A number of industry participants also expressed concerns about the
feasibility of requiring industrial units to put on controls. They noted
that industrial sources, more than EGUs, faced serious challenges in
raising fresh capital. Given the nature of their product and global
competition they cannot pass along price increases in the way EGUs can.

4. Affected Area/National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

	Which states or regions should be covered by the rule? What should the
timing of the rule look like? Should EPA start with existing NAAQS? Or,
should it try to integrate the newer NAAQS into a replacement rule?
Timing becomes a key element when considering which NAAQS to target.

	Sam Napolitano raised the issue of the NAAQS, noting that the original
CAIR was based on the 1997 standards. There is currently interest in
looking at the 2006, and possibly the 2008 NAAQS. A key question for EPA
is what standards the new rule should include to help states comply.
States have expressed interest in having as much help as possible with
the most recent NAAQS. Should EPA try to address the more recent
standards, or wait and address those through a later rulemaking?

	CIBO members agreed that one rulemaking process would be better than
three. The members again expressed concern about local emissions versus
transport emissions and cautioned the Agency to be very careful in
determining whether a particular unit was contributing to transport. Any
new rule should not consider local impacts; that should be left to the
states who can better understand site specific circumstances.

	In response to questions about the ozone season and annual program, Sam
explained that the ozone season was in response to northeastern states'
concerns about summer emissions. He noted that it was unclear whether
the replacement program would continue to have an ozone season. Sam then
raised the issue of high demand days, noting that both Connecticut and
New Jersey have done a lot of work on high demand days. He asked the
group whether they thought special attention should be paid to these
days. CIBO members expressed concern that regulating high demand days
could set a precedent for quantity over distance and suggested that high
demand days might be regulated better in a program smaller than the CAIR
replacement rule.

	An industrial company participant also suggested that EPA bear in mind
reductions that might be gained by meeting requirements of other
regulations, especially in the context of a carbon-constrained world.
Reductions will be made in other areas, and it is important to consider
what capital investments will be required by the different rules and
possible trade-offs between pollutants. It is critical to leave long
lead times so companies can make decisions comprehensively.

	As a follow up to the meeting and in addition to that which was
discussed, it is important to consider the interrelationship of all
pollutants and energy efficiency (CO2 emissions) as it relates to the
operation of industrial boilers, especially existing boilers. In light
of this, CIBO submitted a graph showing the interrelationship of
efficiency, NOx, and CO as they relate to changes in excess air from the
optimum amount at maximum efficiency for a natural gas fired Package
Boiler. While the actual curves will be different for every boiler,
fuel, and load, the relationships will always be the same. For solid
fuel, especially high moisture biofuel, as excess air is increased
beyond the optimum level in order to obtain low CO emissions,
significant decreases in efficiency can occur.  Further increases in
excess air will lead to increased CO and VOC emissions. Consideration of
any industrial provisions under a CAIR rule should carefully evaluate
the requirements to be proposed under the forthcoming Industrial Boiler
and Process Heater MACT Rule.

VIII. Concluding Points

	CIBO members concluded by asking EPA to ensure that the definitions for
EGUs and non-EGUs be consistent across programs, using Acid Rain
provisions as the guide. They asked that EPA pay careful attention to
the exemptions about independent power producer long-term contracts and
Combined Heat and Power operations. In addition, as CAIR gets revisited,
EPA should make sure biomass units don’t inadvertently get classified
as EGUs again.  Finally, EPA needs to consider the uniqueness of small
units creating steam for municipalities which had issues under CAIR.

	Sam Napolitano thanked CIBO members and said EPA would take all of
their suggestions under consideration. He mentioned that meeting notes
would be sent out to all the participants and suggested that they
include additional comments as addenda to the notes. This will help
continue the dialogue process. Sam also offered to send CIBO members the
SO2 and NOx emissions data that had been shared at earlier meetings.

 PAGE

 PAGE   7