  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR–2002–0086, FRL–    ]

RIN 2060-AN80

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed Rule.

SUMMARY:  On October 19, 2006,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA proposed
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing, published on May 22, 2003.
 SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The purpose of the proposed amendments was to
clarify the emission requirements for process vents by establishing a
new maximum achievable control technology floor level of control for
existing combined hazardous air pollutants process vent streams
containing inorganic and organic hazardous air pollutants and adding
requirements for new and reconstructed combined hazardous air pollutants
process vents.  For existing combined hazardous air pollutants process
vents, EPA proposed that the floor was no control.  In light of Sierra
Club v. EPA, we are re-proposing the requirements for existing and new
combined hazardous air pollutants process in this supplemental proposal.

DATES:    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Comments must be
received by EPA on or before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF
PUBLICATION], unless a public hearing is requested by [INSERT 10 DAYS
FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION].  If a hearing is requested, EPA will hold a
public hearing on [INSERT THE DATE 15 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION].
If a hearing is requested, written comments must be received by [INSERT
DATE 45 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION].  If you are interested in
attending the public hearing, contact Mr. John Schaefer at (919)
541-0296 to verify that a hearing will be held.

ADDRESSES:  Comments.  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, by one of the following methods:

www.regulations.gov:  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086.

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Mail:  U.S. Postal Service, send comments to:   EPA Docket Center
(2822T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.  Please include a total of two copies.

Hand Delivery:  In person or by courier, deliver comments to:  EPA
Docket Center (2822T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20004.  Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.  Please include a total of two copies.

Instructions.  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002–0086.  EPA’s policy is that all comments received
will be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.  Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the
following address:  Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer,
EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711.  Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.  The www.regulations.gov website
is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment.  If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet.  If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the
use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.  For additional information about EPA’s public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm .

Docket.  All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index.  Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0086, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket
Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. John Schaefer, EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Measurement Policy Group (D243-05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities.  Entities potentially affected by the proposed
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Semiconductor Manufacturing include:

Table 1.  Regulated Entities Table

Category	NAICS1	Examples of Regulated Entities

Industry	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 334413	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Semiconductor crystal growing facilities, semiconductor wafer
fabrication facilities, semiconductor test and assembly facilities.

1 North American Industry Classification System

	This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action.  This table lists the types of entities that may potentially be
affected by this action.  To determine whether your facility is
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability
criteria in 40 CFR 63.7181 of the rule.  If you have questions regarding
the applicability of the proposed amendments to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

Submitting CBI.  Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail.  Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
document.  Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you
claim to be CBI.  For CBI information submitted on a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI.  In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket.  Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.

Worldwide Web (WWW).  In addition to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of today(s proposal will also be available through the
WWW.  Following the Administrator(s signature, a copy of this action
will be posted on EPA(s Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.  Information may also be obtained from
the webpage for the proposed rulemaking at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pcem/pcempg.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pcem/pcempg.html .  The TTN at EPA(s web site
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.

Public Hearing.  If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10:00
a.m. at the EPA’s Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research
Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate site nearby.

Outline.	The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I.  Background

II.  Summary of the Proposed Amendments

III.  Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

IV.  Impacts of the Proposed Amendments

V.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E.  Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

F.  Executive Order 13175:  Consultation and Coordination with

    Indian Tribal Governments

G.  Executive Order 13045:  Protection of Children from

    Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H.  Executive Order 13211:  Actions Concerning Regulations That

    Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I.  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I.  Background

On May 22, 2003 (68 FR 27913), we issued the national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for semiconductor manufacturing
(40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB).  The NESHAP implement section 112(d) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) reflecting application of
the maximum achievable control technology (MACT).  The NESHAP establish
emission limitations for emission sources at operations used to
manufacture p-type and n-type semiconductors and active solid-state
devices from a wafer substrate.

After promulgation of the NESHAP, it was brought to our attention that
while the NESHAP established separate emission standards for organic and
inorganic HAP from process vents, one plant of which we are now aware
has a different process vent approach system.  Specifically, this plant
combines inorganic and organic vent streams into a single atmospheric
process vent.  At the time we developed the MACT standard, we were not
aware of any sources that combined their inorganic and organic vent
streams, and, therefore, we had no data on such sources.  Rather, during
the development phase of the rule, we determined that since 1980
industry practice has been to strictly separate process vent emissions
into streams containing either organic or inorganic HAP (71 FR 61701,
61702-03, October 19, 2006).  In order to address the combined process
vent stream segment of which we are now aware, on October 19, 2006, we
proposed amending the final rule by establishing emission standards for
existing and new combined process vent streams (71 FR 61701). For the
limited number of existing combined process vents, we proposed no
control.  For new and reconstructed combined HAP process vents, we
proposed the same requirements that currently apply to new inorganic HAP
process vents and new organic HAP process vents (71 FR 61703).

In light of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 479
F.3d 875 (D.C. Circuit 2007), we are issuing this supplementary proposal
to change the requirements for existing and new combined HAP process
vents that we proposed in the October 2006 amendments.  This
supplementary proposal is limited to revising the emission standards for
existing and new combined HAP process vents, and we are requesting
comments only on these proposed changes.

II.  Summary of the Proposed Amendments

The October 2006 proposed amendments proposed no control requirements
for existing combined HAP process vents.  In addition, for new and
reconstructed combined HAP process vents, we proposed the requirement
for inorganic HAP components to be the same as the current requirement
for inorganic HAP process vents and the requirement for organic HAP to
be the same as the requirement for organic HAP process vents (71 FR
61703).

These proposed amendments establish the following emission limit for HAP
emitted from new and existing combined HAP process vents:  14.22 parts
per million by volume (ppmv).

III.  Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

In the October 2006 proposed amendments, we proposed the requirements
for existing combined HAP process vents would be no reductions in
emissions or no control.  Subsequently, the D.C. Circuit in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Circuit 2007) found that EPA’s decision to
set no control emission floors for source categories where the best
performing sources did not use emission control technology was in direct
contravention of CAA section 112(d)(3).  In response to this decision,
we are proposing revised standards for existing and new combined HAP
process vents in this supplementary proposal.

Specifically, we are proposing that existing combined HAP process vents
achieve a control level of 14.22 ppmv, which is the average level of
emissions control achieved by the best performing four combined HAP
process vents that we are aware of at maximum representative operating
conditions.  We are basing the MACT floor on four combined HAP process
vents because we only identified four such vents in our recent
assessment of the semiconductor industry.  This level of control
represents the level actually achieved by the best performing sources,
consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. Circuit 2007) and
CAA section 112(d)(3).

In addition, we are proposing that new combined HAP process vents also
achieve a control level of 14.22 ppmv.  This is because, for new and
reconstructed sources, CAA section 112(d)(3) requires that we set
emissions limitations that are no less stringent than the emissions
control achieved in practice by the best performing similar source,
which in this instance are the existing four combined HAP process vents.
 Our technical analysis of these four process vents, the information
used to develop the 14.22 ppmv limitation, and the beyond the MACT floor
analysis is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

We examined establishing limitations beyond the floor level of control
for existing and new combined HAP process vents.  Establishing a
meaningful control level below the 14.22 ppmv limitation would require
the segregation of organic and inorganic process vent streams and
process heat into separate vent streams.  The separate organic and
inorganic process vents could then be controlled by add-on control
devices.  We looked at one option that segregated the process vents into
organic and inorganic constituents and controlled the inorganic process
streams with a wet scrubber as needed to meet the existing emission
limit for inorganic process vent streams.  We rejected this control
option because the associated costs were calculated to be in excess of
$7.5 million per ton of HAP controlled.  We believe that this option is
not a reasonable beyond the floor control option because the associated
costs are prohibitive.  Therefore, we are proposing the selected
limitation or control level of 14.22 ppmv as the floor level of control
for existing combined HAP process vents.

IV.  Impacts of the Proposed Amendments

The proposed amendments do not affect the level of emissions control
required by the existing NESHAP for the nonair, health, environmental,
and energy impacts.  In the October 2006 rule, we estimated that no
additional add-on controls would be required.  These proposed amendments
do not change the impacts associated with the final rule.

This is because the proposed MACT level of control is achieved by three
of the four process vents evaluated.  We expect the forth process vent
will be able to meet the standard through operational changes rather
than through the use of add on control devices.  In addition, we do not
expect new semiconductor manufacturing facilities will utilize combined
HAP process vents, so we do not expect any new combined HAP process
vents will be constructed in the future.  Therefore, a re-evaluation of
costs associated with the final rule was not necessary.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 V.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is a “significant regulatory action.”  Accordingly, EPA submitted
this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information collection burden.  The
information collection requirements in the final rule have not been
changed by these proposed amendments.  However, OMB has previously
approved the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0519, EPA ICR number 2042.03.  A
copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be
obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA’s
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.  Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as:  (1) A small business as defined by the
Small Business Administrations’ regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.

We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed
rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such
impacts.

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

	Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.  Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year.  Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule.  The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.  Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.  Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan.  The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.

	 We have determined that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector in any one year.  This rule affects only one facility in
the nation.  Total rule impacts were estimated to be approximately
$22,000.  Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.  In addition, EPA has determined that
this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations
upon them.  Therefore, the proposed rule is not subject to section 203
of the UMRA.

E.  Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

	Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications."  "Policies that have federalism
implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have "substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government."

	This proposed rule does not have federalism implications.  It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.  None of the affected semiconductor
facilities are owned or operated by State or local governments.  Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.

	In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy
to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments,
EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.

F.  Executive Order 13175:  Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments

	Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications."  This proposed rule does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive Order 13175.  It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian
tribes.  No tribal governments own or operate semiconductor
manufacturing facilities and are not subject to the proposed standards.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.  EPA
specifically solicits addition comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.

G.  Executive Order 13045:  Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

	Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule
that:  (1) is determined to be "economically significant" as defined
under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children.  If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.

	EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the
potential to influence the regulation.  This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks.

H.  Executive Order 13211:  Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

	This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution,
or use of energy.  This rule does not require the use of add-on control
devices and will therefore not have any adverse energy effects.

I.  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

	Section 112(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.  VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies.  The NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

	This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.

	EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and,
specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable VCS
and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.

Executive Order 12898:  Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or
low-income population.  This proposed rule affects one facility in the
nation.  This facility emits approximately one ton per year of regulated
HAP and does not significantly affect the local population.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.

______________

Dated:

______________________

Stephen L. Johnson

Administrator.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40,
chapter I, part 63, of the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

	Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart BBBBB--[AMENDED]

2. Section 63.7184 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

§63.7184  What emission limitations, operating limits, and work
practice standards must I meet?

*  *  *  *  *

(f)  Process vents – combined HAP emissions.  For each combined HAP
process vent, other than process vents from storage tanks, you must
reduce or maintain the concentration of emitted HAP from the process
vent to less than or equal to 14.22 ppmv.  These limitations can be met
by venting emissions from your process vent through a closed vent system
to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of
§63.982(a)(2).

 PAGE

 PAGE   21

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Semiconductor Manufacturing

Page   PAGE  22  of   NUMPAGES  23

23

 PAGE   19


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 71006]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC12-24-000.
    Applicants: Emera Incorporated, California Pacific Electric
Company, LLC, Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp., Liberty Energy
Utilities Co.
    Description: Application of California Pacific Electric Company,
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111107-5107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/28/2011.

    Docket Numbers: EC12-25-000.
    Applicants: Avenal Park LLC, Sand Drag LLC, Sun City Project LLC,
Eurus Combine Hills II LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Pursuant to Section 203
of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Consideration and
Waivers.
    Filed Date: 11/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111107-5201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/28/2011.

    Docket Numbers: EC12-26-000.
    Applicants: Boralex Industries Inc., ReEnergy Biomass V LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization of Proposed Transaction
by Boralex Industries Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 11/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111107-5204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/28/2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER03-534-013.
    Applicants: Ingenco Wholesale Power, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Ingenco Wholesale Power,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111107-5212.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/28/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1556-004.
    Applicants: Longview Power.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Longview Power, LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111107-5106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/28/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2068-007; ER10-2077-006.
    Applicants: Delaware City Refining Company LLC, PBF Power Marketing
LLC.
    Description: Delaware City Refining Company LLC Notice of Change in
Status.
    Filed Date: 11/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111107-5196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/28/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2923-004.
    Applicants: Sunbury Generation LP.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Sunbury Generation LP.
    Filed Date: 11/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111107-5199.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/28/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4121-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Allete-Bison LGIA--Deficiency Response to be effective
7/27/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111107-5063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/28/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4423-001.
    Applicants: Lockport Energy Associates, L.P.
    Description: Supplement to Triennial Updated Market Power Analysis
Lockport Energy Associates, L.P.
    Filed Date: 11/03/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111103-5027.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/24/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-358-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Queue Position W2-040; Original Service Agreement No.
3097 to be effective 10/6/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111107-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/28/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-359-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Queue Position O23; Original Service Agreement Nos.
2769 & 2770 to be effective 9/17/2010.
    Filed Date: 11/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111107-5148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/28/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-360-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: NYISO Proposed Tariff Revisions Regarding New Capacity
Zones to be effective 1/9/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111107-5158.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/28/2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR10-11-004.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corp.
    Description: Compliance Filing of the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation in Response to the October 7, 2011 Order.
    Filed Date: 11/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111107-5195.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 11/28/2011.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 8, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29539 Filed 11-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31045-31046]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12465]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2014-0182; FRL-9911-56-Region 2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plan, Conformity Budgets, Emissions Inventories;
State of New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. This revision establishes an
updated ten-year carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan for the New York
portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NYCMA) CO area
which includes the following seven counties: Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New
York, Queens, Richmond and Westchester. In addition, EPA is approving a
revision to the CO motor vehicle emissions budgets for New York and
revisions to the 2007 Attainment/Base Year emissions inventory.
    The New York portion of the NYCMA CO area was redesignated to
attainment of the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) on
April 19, 2002 and maintenance plans were also approved at that time.
By this action, EPA is approving the second maintenance plan for this
area because it provides for continued attainment for an additional ten
years of the CO NAAQS. The intended effect of this rulemaking is to
approve a SIP revision that will insure continued maintenance of the CO
NAAQS.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on June 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R02-OAR-2014-0182. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is 212-
637-4249.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning
today's final action, please contact Henry Feingersh, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New
York, New York 10007-1866, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number
(212) 637-3901, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving New York's SIP revision updating their existing
ten-year carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan with another ten-year
plan for the New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island (NYCMA) CO area which includes the following seven counties:
Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Queens, Richmond and Westchester. The
reader is referred to the March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16265) proposal for
details on this rulemaking.

II. What comments did EPA receive on its proposal and what are EPA's
responses?

    EPA received one comment that supports our proposed approval of the
updated CO maintenance plan. EPA is approving the New York SIP revision
request.

III. What is EPA's final action?

    EPA is approving New York's SIP revision updating their existing
ten-year CO maintenance plan for the New York portion of the New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NYCMA) CO area. EPA is also approving
the 2007 CO base year emissions inventory and the CO motor vehicle
emissions budgets all dated May 9, 2013.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose

additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 29, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 16, 2014.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
    Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.1670, add a new entry at the end of the table in
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved New York Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
        Action/SIP element            geographic or        New York      EPA approval date       Explanation
                                    nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Approval of CO maintenance plan,   New York portion of        05/09/13  5/30/14 [insert      This is the 2nd 10-
 CO motor vehicle budgets, and      the New York-                        page number where    year CO
 2007 CO base year emissions        Northern New                         the document         maintenance plan
 inventory.                         Jersey-Long Island                   begins].             for the New York
                                    (NYCMA) CO area.                                          portion of the
                                                                                NYCMA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  52.1682, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1682  Control strategy: Carbon monoxide.

* * * * *
    (d) Approval--The May 9, 2013 revision to the carbon monoxide (CO)
maintenance plan for the New York portion of the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NYCMA, CO area. This revision contains a second
ten-year maintenance plan that demonstrates continued attainment of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO through the year 2022,
2007 CO base year emissions inventory and CO motor vehicle emissions
budgets through the maintenance period.

[FR Doc. 2014-12465 Filed 5-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70251-70253]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0209]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 12 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in
one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye.
If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 10, 2016. All
comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued
the day after the comment period closes.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0209 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 12 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Robert A. Andersen

    Mr. Andersen, 81, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
incident in 2011. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in
his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2016,
his ophthalmologist stated, ``Mr. Andersen functions well with
activities of daily living including but not limited to sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Andersen reported that he has driven straight trucks for
64 years, accumulating 30 million miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 58 years, accumulating 5.6 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from California. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Daniel L. Bawden

    Mr. Bawden, 71, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/300.
Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``In my
professional opinion, the scotoma in his left eye is so small that he
can safely operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Bawden reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 7 years, accumulating 21,000 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 43 years, accumulating 3.2 million
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Kelly L. Ewing

    Mr. Ewing, 47, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye due
to a traumatic incident in 1999. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an
examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion, I
do believe that Mr. [sic] Ewing has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required of him to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Ewing reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years,
accumulating 150,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 23
years, accumulating 548,550 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Joseph G. Fischer

    Mr. Fischer, 52, has a corneal scar in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2013. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
15, and in his left eye, count fingers. Following an examination in
2016, his ophthalmologist stated, ``I believe Mr. Fischer is capable to
return to work as a commercial driver despite the vision impairment of
the left eye.'' Mr. Fischer reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 33 years, accumulating 495,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Missouri. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Nylo K. Helberg

    Mr. Helberg, 26, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
100. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``In my
opinion, his condition will not affect his ability to safely operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Helberg reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 4 years, accumulating 240,000 miles. He holds an operator's
license from North Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

J. Willard Keener

    Mr. Keener, 58, has had strabismus in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion, and in
his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist
stated, ``In my opinion, Mr. Keener has sufficient vision to perform
the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Keener reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years,
accumulating 360,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Billy R. McLaurin

    Mr. McLaurin, 69, has had a retinal scar in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his
left eye, 20/30. Following an examination in 2016, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``In conclusion, it is my opinion that the ophthalmic findings
in the above gentleman's right eye are chronic and stable and do not
seem to significantly impact his capacity to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. McLaurin reported that he has driven buses for 19 years,
accumulating 141,246 miles. He holds a Class CB CDL from Delaware. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Jason R. Raml

    Mr. Raml, 37, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
400. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated, ``I feel
that Jason has sufficient vision to safely operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Raml reported that he has driven straight trucks for 25
years, accumulating 75,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
12 years, accumulating 85,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from South
Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Alfred L. Robinson

    Mr. Robinson, 59, has had a prosthetic left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no
light perception. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist
stated, ``If correctable to 20/20 in the right eye and 150 degree field
of vision satisfies your requirements to be able to operate a
commercial vehicle, then Alfred L. Robinson meets those requirements.''
Mr. Robinson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years,
accumulating 135,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 15
years, accumulating 180,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Arkansas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jerry L. Smith

    Mr. Smith, 52, has had a prosthetic right eye since childhood. The
visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016, his optometrist stated,
``I certify that in Dr. Timothy Wilson's medical opinion, Jerry L.
Smith has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Smith reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 450,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 450,000 miles. He holds
a Class A M2 CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Danny R. Tate

    Mr. Tate, 39, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident
in 2007. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2016, his
optometrist stated, ``It is my opinion that he has sufficient vision to
safely perform the driving tasks required to

operate a commercial vehicle without restriction.'' Mr. Tate reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 165,000
miles. He holds an operator's license from Virginia. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Larry K. Zielinski

    Mr. Zielinski, 69, has age related macular degeneration in his
right eye since 2006. The visual acuity in his right eye is counting
fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2016,
his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my medical opinion, Larry Zielinski
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Zielinski reported that he has driven
tractor-trailer combinations for 45 years, accumulating 1.8 million
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

III. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the
Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
put the docket number FMCSA-2016-0209 in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search. When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment Now!'' button
and type your comment into the text box in the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by mail
or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/
2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after
the close of the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert the docket number FMCSA-2016-0209 in the ``Keyword'' box and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: September 29, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-24452 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 189 (Wednesday, September 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58751-58752]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24872]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2015-0020]

Recovery Policy: Stafford Act Section 705, Disaster Grant
Closeout Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is accepting
comments on Recovery Policy Stafford Act Section 705, Disaster Grant
Closeout Procedures.

DATES: Comments must be received by November 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be identified by docket ID FEMA-2015-0020 and
may be submitted by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Please note that this proposed
policy is not a rulemaking and the Federal Rulemaking Portal is being
utilized only as a mechanism for receiving comments.
    Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 8NE, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472-3100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Stronach, Public Assistance
Division, FEMA,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or
material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will
include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting
this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice, which can be viewed by clicking on the ``Privacy & Security
Notice'' link in the footer of www.regulations.gov.
    You may submit your comments and material by the methods specified
in the ADDRESSES section above. Please submit your comments and any
supporting material by only one means to avoid the receipt and review
of duplicate submissions.
    Docket: The proposed policy is available in docket ID FEMA-2015-
0020. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments
received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov and search for the docket ID. Submitted comments
may also be inspected at

FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, 8NE, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472.

II. Background

    FEMA is requesting comment on a proposed policy describing FEMA's
procedures for implementing section 705 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Specifically, it sets
forth guidelines FEMA proposes to follow to determine whether section
705(c) applies to bar FEMA from deobligating grant funding. The
proposed policy does not have the force or effect of law.
    FEMA seeks comment on the proposed policy, which is available
online at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID FEMA-2015-0020. Based
on the comments received, FEMA may make appropriate revisions to the
proposed policy. Although FEMA will consider any comments received in
the drafting of the final policy, FEMA will not provide a response to
comments document. When or if FEMA issues a final policy, FEMA will
publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register and make the
final policy available at http://www.regulations.gov. The final policy
will not have the force or effect of law.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5205.

    Dated: September 25, 2015.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-24872 Filed 9-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P