[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 81 (Friday, April 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24798-24802]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09912]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0027]

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 32 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 May 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0027 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: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 32 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.

Qualifications of Applicants

Deneris G. Allen

    Mr. Allen, age 48, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye
since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist
noted, ``Upon further examination, it has been determined that Mr.
Allen's vision is adequate to safely operate commercial vehicles
without prescription glasses.'' Mr. Allen reported that he has driven
tractor-trailer combinations for 11 years, accumulating 605,000 miles.
He holds a Class A Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from Louisiana.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Terry L. Baker

    Mr. Baker, 60, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/
100. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist noted, ``Based
upon my findings and medical expertise, I A. Badillo hereby certify
Terry Baker to be visually able to safely operate a commercial motor
vehicle.'' Mr. Baker reported that he has driven straight trucks for 4
years, accumulating 300,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
2 months, accumulating 1,500 miles. He holds a Class DMA CDL from
Kentucky. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Rocky B. Bentz

    Mr. Bentz, 31, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400.
Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist noted, ``It is my
medical opinion that despite not being 20/40 or better in his left eye,
Mr. Bentz is still perfectly capable of operating his commercial
vehicle safety, which he has done for a number of years.'' Mr. Bentz
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating
66,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Ryan L. Brown

    Mr. Brown, 39, has had Coat's disease 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 2012, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``We have examined Ryan Brown since 1984 and he was most
recently examined on October 23, 2012, and I feel that he has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Brown reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 18 years, accumulating 112,320 miles. He holds an operator's
license from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Juan R. Cano

    Mr. Cano, 37, has had esotropia in his right eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion, and in
his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist
noted, ``Mr. Cano presents with esotropia since birth [sic]. Visual
acuity is stable and has [sic] sufficient vision to perform driving
tasks [sic] to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Cano reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 7 years, accumulating 700,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 7 years, accumulating 700,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

John Cole

    Mr. Cole, 56, has had idiopathic amblyopia in his right eye since
birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and
in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his
optometrist noted, ``It is my medical opinion that John Cole does have
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Cole reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 25 years, accumulating 1.2 million miles,

and tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years, accumulating 80,000
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.

Kenneth Crider

    Mr. Crider, 47, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, 20/
100. Following an examination in 2012, his ophthalmologist noted, ``In
my medical opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Crider
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating
428,400 miles. He holds an operator's license from Kentucky. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash, for which he was
not cited, and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jon R. Gunschel

    Mr. Gunschel, 58, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye
since 1979. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2013, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``I consider Mr. Gunschel to have sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Gunschel reported that he has driven straight trucks for
20 years, accumulating 4,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Massachusetts. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Dean Hawley

    Mr. Hawley, 46, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye due
to a traumatic incident in 1989. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception.
Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist noted, ``It is my
professional opinion that Mr. Hawley's vision is sufficient to perform
the driving tasks necessary to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Hawley reported that he has driven straight trucks for 29 years,
accumulating 580,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 20
years, accumulating 400,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North
Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Clarence Jones

    Mr. Jones, 62, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist
noted, ``It is my opinion that Mr. Jones has sufficient visual acuity
and visual fields to operate a commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Jones
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 40 years, accumulating
2.3 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 22 years,
accumulating 429,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Cody A. Keys

    Mr. Keys, 51, has had epiretinal membrane in his right eye since
1989. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is counting
fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012,
his optometrist noted, ``The results from the comprehensive eye exam
indicate that Mr. Keys has necessary vision for commercial driving.''
Mr. Keys reported that he has driven straight trucks for 12 years,
accumulating 120,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Oklahoma. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Eddie M. Kimble

    Mr. Kimble, 51, has had vascular blockage in the optic nerve in his
left eye since 2003. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2012,
his ophthalmologist noted, ``Mr. Kimble has poor vision in the left eye
caused by a vascular blockage in the optic nerve * * In my opin [sic],
he can safely drive a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Kimble reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 187,200 miles. He
holds an operator's license from North Carolina. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Darrell W. Knorr

    Mr. Knorr, 71, has had a prosthetic left eye since 1983. The best
corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye,
no light perception. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist
noted, ``In my medical opinion, this patient has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Knorr reported that he has driven straight trucks for 50 years,
accumulating 25,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 25
years, accumulating 300,000. He holds 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.

Brandon S. Langston

    Mr. Langston, 31, has had deprivation amblyopia in his left eye
since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is
20/200, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013,
his optometrist noted, ``Mr. Langston appears to have the visual
ability to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Langston reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 32,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 11 years, accumulating 385,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Wyoming. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Joseph C. Lee

    Mr. Lee, 38, has had a ruptured globe in his left eye since 2002.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in 2012, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``His visual deficiency is stable. He is able to
recognize the colors of traffic control signal [sic] and perform the
driving task required to operate commercial vehicle [sic].'' Mr. Lee
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating
1.1 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years,
accumulating 2.1 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one
conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he was following too
closely.

Anthony Luciano

    Mr. Luciano, 56, has had a cataract in his left eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15,
and in his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2012, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``In my medical opinion Mr. Luciano has
sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Luciano
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating
350,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Connecticut. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Todd Marcino

    Mr. Marcino, 44, has central scotoma in his left eye since birth.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in 2012, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``Feel patients congenital defect LE is stable.
Feel should be able to operate commercial vehicle given normal vision
right eye.'' Mr. Marcino reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 3 years, accumulating 12,480 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

David McKinney

    Mr. McKinney, 48, has had a prosthetic right eye since 1986. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception,
and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his
optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, since this has been a life long
deficiency, David has made good adaptations and his vision should be
sufficient to operate cars and commercial trucks.'' Mr. McKinney
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14 years, accumulating
1.4 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years,
accumulating 1 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.

Roger Myers

    Mr. Myers, 58, has had a prosthetic right eye since childhood. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception,
and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2013, his
optometrist noted, ``It is my opinion that Mr. Myers has the required
vision to safely operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Myers reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 100,000
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 6 months, accumulating
1,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Frank L. O'Rourke

    Mr. O'Rourke, 57, has had a prosthetic left eye since 2009. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left
eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2013, his
optometrist noted, ``I believe Mr. O'Rourke has sufficient vision and
visual field to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. O'Rourke reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 30 years, accumulating 300,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 30 years, accumulating 3 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from New York. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Scott Oeder

    Mr. Oeder, 50, has had a retinal scar in his right eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200,
and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his
optometrist noted, ``He does have sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Oeder
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating
140,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years,
accumulating 500,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

James A. Parker

    Mr. Parker, 48, has had a macular hole in his left eye since 1993.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist
noted, ``It is my opinion that James Parker has sufficient vision to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Parker reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 684,000 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.

Curtis L. Pattengale

    Mr. Pattengale, 31, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye
since 1991. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20,
and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in
2012, his optometrist noted, ``It is my opinion that Mr. Pattengale has
sufficient vision to continue as a CDL driver. He will of course need
to continue use of the external rear view mirrors as he has been
trained.''
    Mr. Pattengale reported that he has driven straight trucks for 7
years, accumulating 54,600 miles. He holds a chauffer's license from
Indiana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Gonzalo Pena

    Mr. Pena, 40, has had a prosthetic right eye since childhood. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception,
and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his
optometrist noted, ``I am confident that the quality of the left eye is
appropriate for commercial truck driving requirements.'' Mr. Pena
reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 6 years,
accumulating 330,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Steven R. Peters

    Mr. Peters, 59, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist
noted, ``In my opinion, Steven has sufficient vision to perform his
driving task in a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Peters reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 450,000 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 450,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Larry F. Reber

    Mr. Reber, 72, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye
since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is
no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2012, his ophthalmologist noted, ``I would certify, in
my medical opinion, that he has sufficient vision to perform the
driving task of operating a commercial vehicle which he has been doing
for the past 20 years.'' Mr. Reber reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 50 years, accumulating 650,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL
from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash, for
which he was not cited, and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Hoyt V. Smith

    Mr. Smith, 33, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his
left eye, 20/150. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist
noted, ``He has been dealing with the lazy left eye since childhood,
and mainly uses his right eye when viewing centrally. In my opinion, I
see no valid reason why Mr. Smith cannot

continue to use a commercial vehicle to help grow and sustain his
business.'' Mr. Smith reported that he has driven straight trucks for 7
years, accumulating 136,500 miles. He holds an operator's license from
South Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Edward Swaggerty, Jr.

    Mr. Swaggerty, 47, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye
since 1993. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his
optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Swaggerty
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 29 years, accumulating
1.5 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years,
accumulating 1.1 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

James L. Tinsley, Jr.

    Mr. Tinsley, 54, has had traumatic glaucoma in his right eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is
counting fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination
in 2012, his ophthalmologist noted, ``In my medical opinion, he does
have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Tinsley reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 800,000 miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Nicholas Turpin

    Mr. Turpin, 56, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist noted,
``In my opinion, Mr. Turpin has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle with both
eyes.'' Mr. Turpin reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 24 years, accumulating 1 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Thomas Ward

    Mr. Ward, 66, has had a central retinal vein occlusion in his right
eye since 2000. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is
20/200, and in his left eye, 20/30. Following an examination in 2012,
his ophthalmologist noted, ``He is otherwise qualified to operate a
commercial vehicle under 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1-13), and in my medical
opinion [sic] given the stability and duration of his unilateral vision
loss, he should be able to drive safely.'' Mr. Ward reported that he
has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 45 years, accumulating 3.6
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows one crash for which he was not cited, and three
convictions for moving violations in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit
by 6-10 mph, operated an unsafe vehicle, and exceeded the speed limit
by 13 mph.

Marcus R. Watkins

    Mr. Watkins, 50, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since
1998. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and
in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2012,
his ophthalmologist noted, ``He has sufficient vision to perform
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Watkins
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating
156,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Texas. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business May 28, 2013. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable.
    In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in
the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public
docket for new material.

    Issued on: April 12, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administration for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-09912 Filed 4-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68378-68384]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27276]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0046; FRL-9902- 91-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois; Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program for
Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) on November 29, 2012, concerning the state's vehicle inspection
and maintenance (I/M) program in the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis
ozone nonattainment areas in Illinois. The revision amends I/M program
requirements in the active control measures portion of the ozone SIP to
reflect changes that have been implemented at the state level since EPA
fully approved the I/M program on February 22, 1999. The submittal also
includes a demonstration under section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) addressing lost emission reductions associated with the program
changes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2013-0046, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The

Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2013-0046. 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 email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site 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 email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
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
instructions on submitting comments, go to section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    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 Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source
Program Manager, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source
Program Manager, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

    I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    II. Background
    III. What changes have been made to the Illinois I/M program?
    IV. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?
    a. Substantive I/M Requirements
    b. Performance Evaluation
    c. Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment and Maintenance
Under CAA Section 110(l)
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period.

II. Background

    The general purpose of motor vehicle I/M programs is to reduce
emissions from in-use motor vehicles in need of repairs and thereby
contribute to state and local efforts to improve air quality and to
attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
    Illinois has operated an enhanced I/M program in both the Chicago
and Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas since February 1999.
The program is presently operating in Cook, DuPage and Lake Counties
and portions of McHenry, Kane, Will and Kendall Counties in the Chicago
ozone nonattainment area and in portions of Madison, St. Clair and
Monroe Counties in the Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment area.
The program was authorized by the Illinois Vehicle Emissions Inspection
Law (VEIL) of 1995 (625 ILCS 5/13B). EPA fully approved Illinois's
enhanced I/M program into the SIP on February 22, 1999, (64 FR 8517)
including the program's legal authority and administrative program
standards and procedures found in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 240 and 276.
Initially, all vehicles were inspected by measuring tailpipe emission
levels. As of February 1, 2007, the program dropped tailpipe testing
entirely and inspected all vehicles by scanning the on-board
diagnostics (OBD) systems. This change was the result of statutory
changes outlined in the VEIL of 2005, as amended, 625 ILCS 5/13C.

III. What changes have been made to the Illinois I/M program?

    The Illinois I/M SIP revision submitted on November 29, 2012,
reflects several changes to the approved program. The most significant
changes to the Illinois I/M program took effect beginning on February
2007 and include:
     The elimination of the IM240 transient mode exhaust test
for all vehicles beginning February 1, 2007.
     The elimination of the evaporative system integrity (gas
cap pressure) test for all OBD compliant vehicles beginning February 1,
2007.
     The replacement of the computer-matching enforcement
mechanism with a registration denial based system beginning January 1,
2008.
     The elimination of the steady-state idle exhaust and
evaporative integrity (gas cap pressure) testing for all vehicles
beginning February 1, 2012.
     The exemption of pre-2007 model year (MY) heavy-duty
vehicles (HDVs) with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 8,501
and 14,000 pounds beginning February 1, 2012.
     The exemption of all HDVs with a GVWR greater than 14,000
pounds as of February 1, 2012.
     The requirement of OBD pass/fail testing for all 2007 and
newer OBD-compliant HDVs.
    In addition to the changes discussed above, the November 29, 2012,
submittal included a number of minor revisions to the program that do
not

have a significant impact on overall program operations or the
emissions reductions associated with it. A full list of the regulatory
changes submitted by Illinois for EPA approval includes:
     VEIL of 2005, as amended, 625 ILCS 5/13C (Public Act 94-
526 enacted on August 10, 2005; Public Act 94-848 enacted on June 9,
2006; Public Act 97-106, enacted on July 14, 2011).
     Revisions to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 240 (R11-19 effective March
18, 2011 (35 Ill. Reg. 5552 (April 1, 2011)); R12-12 effective February
1, 2012 (36 Ill. Reg. 1066 (January 27, 2012)).
     Revisions to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 276 effective June 28, 2011
(35 Ill. Reg. 11268) and January 30, 2012 (36 Ill. Reg. 2257).
    To support the changes outlined above, the revision also included a
summary of the MOVES2010a modeling inputs used to calculate program
benefits; a demonstration for meeting the modeling requirements for
EPA's alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard; and a section
110(l) demonstration that includes offset emission credits. Full copies
of the SIP revision are located in EPA's docket.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?

a. Substantive I/M Requirements
    EPA's requirements for basic and enhanced I/M programs are found in
40 CFR part 51, subpart S. The I/M SIP revision submitted by Illinois
must be consistent with these requirements and must meet EPA's
requirements for enforceability and section 110(l) requirements of the
CAA. The most important aspects of I/M affected by the submitted
revisions to the Illinois I/M program include network type changes,
vehicle coverage and exemptions, test procedures and standards, test
equipment, waivers and compliance, and the performance standard
evaluation.

1. Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR 51.353

    Under 40 CFR 51.353, basic and enhanced I/M programs can be
centralized, decentralized, or a hybrid of the two at the state's
discretion, but must be demonstrated to achieve the same (or better)
level of emission reduction as the applicable performance standard
described in either 40 CFR 51.351 or 40 CFR 51.352. The revised
Illinois I/M program consists of a hybrid network which includes a
combination of centralized test-only stations and decentralized,
appointment-only, test and repair stations. Provision and maintenance
of all test equipment, operation of data management services, waiver
analysis, and inspector training, is handled by the state's contractor,
Applus+ Technologies, Inc. All tests, regardless of station type, are
conducted using the same test equipment and fraud prevention
techniques. Vehicles in the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis areas
required to comply with the I/M program are tested biennially by the
contractor at either centralized test-only stations or decentralized
test and repair stations. The Illinois I/M program is conducted under
the legal authority of the VEIL of 2005. The submittal includes
provisions for ongoing program evaluation to satisfy the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.353. In addition, the state has committed to submit to EPA
annual reports that meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.353 and 40 CFR
51.366. This part of the submittal continues to meet the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.353 of the Federal I/M regulation.

2. Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR 51.356

    Under 40 CFR 51.356, the performance standard for enhanced I/M
programs (including alternate low enhanced programs) assumes coverage
of all MY 1968 and later light duty vehicles (LDVs) and light duty
trucks (LDTs) up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, and includes vehicles operating
on all fuel types. Subject vehicles include vehicles registered or
required to be registered within the I/M program area boundaries, and
fleets primarily operated within the I/M program area boundaries and
belonging to the covered model years and vehicle classes. Under EPA
regulations, other levels of coverage may be approved if the necessary
emission reductions are achieved. The Illinois I/M program requires all
1996 and newer MY LDVs, LDTs, and OBD compliant HDVs registered in the
Chicago or Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment area to be subject
to the OBD inspection. The legal authority to enforce the vehicle
coverage requirement in Illinois is provided by the VEIL of 2005. The
rules implemented to enforce vehicle coverage are contained in the
emissions standards adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (35
Ill. Adm. Code 240), and the procedural rules adopted by IEPA (35 Ill.
Adm. Code 276). As described in section IV.b below, EPA concludes that
the state has demonstrated that it meets the alternate low enhanced
performance standards with the revised program changes. Thus, the
changes in vehicle coverage under the revised requirements are
acceptable under 40 CFR 51.356.

3. Test Procedures--Standards--40 CFR 51.357

    Under 40 CFR 51.357, I/M programs must establish and implement
written test procedures and pass/fail standards for each model year and
vehicle type. Under the revised requirements, Illinois establishes OBD
as the primary testing method and eliminates the previously established
idle and transient tailpipe testing methods. In addition, the revised
requirements eliminate the evaporative emission test also known as the
``gas cap test'', which was previously required but is no longer
necessary with OBD technology. The Illinois I/M program submittal
contains detailed procedures for connecting to the OBD system,
information on readiness codes for OBD tests, and pass/fail standards
for OBD equipped vehicles. Updated test procedures are contained in 35
Ill. Adm. Code 276 and applicable emission standards are contained in
35 Ill. Adm. Code 240. This part of the submittal meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.357 and 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M
regulation.

4. Test Equipment--40 CFR 51.358

    Computerized test systems are required for performing any
measurement on subject vehicles. The Federal I/M regulation requires
that the state SIP submittal include written technical specifications
for all test equipment used in the program. The specifications must
describe the analysis process, the necessary test equipment, the
required features, and written acceptance testing criteria and
procedures. As mentioned before, the revised changes repeal references
in the requirements relating to idle and transient tailpipe testing
methods, including emission equipment specifications and inspection
requirements retaining the requirements and specifications for OBD
testing. All test stations, whether they are centralized test-only
stations, or decentralized test and repair stations, are required to
use the same test equipment and data management systems as provided by
the contractor.\1\ Requirements for the entire test system and vehicle
inspection report are contained in the Illinois I/M program contract
with Applus+ Technologies, Inc. The Illinois I/M program submittal
contains detailed technical specifications for program test equipment
that mirror EPA's requirements and guidance. This part of the submittal
continues to meet the

requirements of 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The contractor's license plate recognition system is not
required at low-volume decentralized test and repair stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Quality Control--40 CFR 51.359

    Section <IP_ADDRESS> of Illinois I/M program contract with Applus+
Technologies, Inc., as well as 35 Ill. Adm. Code 276, Subpart F,
directs IEPA and the contractor to ensure quality and reliability. The
results of the ongoing quality assurance program and program
evaluations are incorporated into the annual report submitted to EPA
under 40 CFR 51.366. This part of the submittal continues to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.359 of the Federal I/M regulation.

6. Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR 51.360

    The Federal I/M regulation allows for the issuance of a waiver,
which is a form of compliance with the program requirements that allows
a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test standards. The
waiver requirements for Illinois are specified in 35 Ill. Adm. Code
276, Subpart D. In addition to waivers, the I/M program allows
motorists to comply if they meet the requirements for an economic
hardship extension, if their vehicle is located outside of the test
area, or if the vehicle has complied with another jurisdiction's
testing requirement. Legal authority for the issuance of waivers in the
Illinois I/M program is contained in the VEIL of 2005. Specifically,
Sections 625 ILCS 5/13C-15 and 5/13C-30 provide the criteria that must
be met before a vehicle that has failed a vehicle emissions retest can
qualify for a waiver, economic hardship extension, outside of affected
counties annual exemption, or reciprocity emission compliance
certificate. In addition, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 276, Subpart D, provides
the procedures to be followed in the issuance of a waiver, economic
hardship extension, or outside of affected counties annual exemption.
Finally, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 276, Subpart J, provides the requirements
for the issuance of an emissions compliance certificate under
reciprocity with other states or jurisdictions. This part of the
submittal continues to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.360.

7. Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR 51.361 and Motorist
Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR 51.362

    Under 40 CFR 51.361, compliance must be ensured through the denial
of motor vehicle registration in enhanced I/M programs unless an
exception for use of an existing alternative is approved. The
enforcement mechanism for the Illinois I/M program changed from a
computer-matching system to a vehicle registration denial based system
on January 1, 2008. Sections 625 ILCS 5/13C-15 and 5/13C-55 of the VEIL
of 2005 specifically require that the owner of a vehicle subject to
inspection have proof of compliance from IEPA in order to obtain or
renew a vehicle registration for a subject vehicle. As part of this
process, IEPA and the Illinois Secretary of State maintain a level of
motorist enforcement necessary to ensure a compliance rate of no less
than 96 percent of subject vehicles. This part of the submittal
continues to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.361 and 40 CFR 51.362
of the Federal I/M regulation.
b. Performance Evaluation
    As part of the November 29, 2012, I/M SIP revision, IEPA provided
an updated performance evaluation using the EPA's motor vehicle
emissions simulator model, MOVES2010a.\2\ The updated performance
evaluation included a summary report outlining the modeling results and
full modeling input files, output data files, and run specifications
for the MOVES2010a evaluation. The purpose of the updated performance
evaluation is to demonstrate that the Illinois I/M program, as amended,
would continue to meet the Federal enhanced I/M performance standard in
both the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas in
Illinois. The results of IEPA's analysis are summarized in Tables 1 and
2 below, which show that the emissions reductions achieved by the
Illinois I/M program, as amended, meet or exceed those achieved under
the performance standards. The amended Illinois I/M program thus
continues to achieve greater emissions reductions than the Federal
model program because the Illinois I/M program includes elements that
go beyond Federal I/M requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in March 2010 (75 FR
9411). EPA subsequently released two minor model revisions:
MOVES2010a in September 2010 and MOVES2010b in April 2012. Both of
these minor revisions enhance model performance and do not
significantly affect the criteria pollutant emissions results from
MOVES2010.

     Table 1--Summary of Results of IEPA's Alternative Low Enhanced
           Performance Modeling for Chicago Nonattainment Area
                            [Grams per mile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            VOC     NOX
                      Program type                          \1\     \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Low Enhanced I/M Performance Standard.......    0.37    1.29
Illinois 2012 I/M Program...............................    0.37    1.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Volatile organic compound.
\2\ Oxides of nitrogen.

     Table 2--Summary of Results of IEPA's Alternative Low Enhanced
    Performance Modeling for Metro-East St. Louis Nonattainment Area
                            [Grams per mile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Program type                          VOC     NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Low Enhanced I/M Performance Standard.......    0.46    1.50
Illinois 2012 I/M Program...............................     \1\    1.45
                                                            0.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Value is within +/-0.02 grams per mile margin for error allowed for
  by EPA.

    Based on our review of the I/M SIP revision, EPA finds IEPA's
performance standard evaluation and use of the alternate low enhanced
I/M performance standard to be acceptable. EPA also finds that the
Illinois I/M program, as amended, meets or exceeds the alternate low
enhanced performance standard in both the Chicago and Metro-East St.
Louis nonattainment areas as required under 40 CFR 51.351.
c. Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment and Maintenance Under
CAA Section 110(l)
    Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(l) to be approved by EPA. Section
110(l) states:

    The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section
171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.

    EPA interprets section 110(l) to apply to all requirements of the
CAA and to all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment,
unclassifiable, or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria
pollutants. EPA also interprets section 110(l) to require a
demonstration addressing all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient
concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. In the
absence of an attainment demonstration, to demonstrate no interference
with any

applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under section 110(l), EPA
believes it is appropriate to allow states to substitute equivalent
emissions reductions to compensate for any change to a SIP approved
program, as long as actual emissions in the air are not increased.
``Equivalent'' emissions reductions mean reductions which are equal to
or greater than those reductions achieved by the control measure
approved in the active portion of the SIP. In order to show that
compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, modeling or adequate
justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent reductions
must represent actual, new emissions reductions achieved in a
contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing SIP control
measure, in order to preserve the status quo level of emission in the
air. In addition to being contemporaneous, the equivalent emissions
reductions must also be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and
surplus to be approved into the SIP.
    The Illinois I/M SIP revision includes a 110(l) demonstration that
uses equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for emission
reduction losses resulting from changes to the February 22, 1999, SIP
approved I/M program in the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis ozone
nonattainment areas in Illinois. The submittal indicates that IEPA used
the latest version of EPA's motor vehicle emissions model program,
MOVES2010a, to estimate the emissions effects of the program changes.
Based on our review of the information provided, EPA finds that IEPA
used reasonable methods and appropriate models in estimating the
emissions effects of the program changes. IEPA's MOVES modeling shows
that the changes to the Illinois I/M program result in fewer reductions
than would have otherwise been obtained from the I/M program originally
approved in the SIP by EPA on February 22, 1999. Tables 3 and 4 below
summarize IEPA's emissions calculations comparing the revised I/M
program to the SIP approved I/M program in units of tons per day (tpd)
and highlight the emissions increases that need to be addressed as part
of the 110(l) demonstration.

                                Table 3--SIP I/M Program vs. Revised I/M Program in the Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area
                                                                          [tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  SIP I/M program               Revised I/M program             Emissions increase
                          Year                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                VOC             NOX             VOC             NOX             VOC             NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007....................................................          138.44          462.33          146.08          476.28            7.65           13.95
2009....................................................          108.57          374.35          113.76          383.86            5.19            9.51
2012....................................................           75.42          255.38           80.27          260.22            4.85            4.84
2015....................................................           56.56          186.63           59.99          189.59            3.43            2.96
2025....................................................           39.64          113.83           40.06          114.13            0.42            0.31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Table 4--SIP I/M Program vs. Revised I/M Program in the Metro-East St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area
                                                                          [tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  SIP I/M program               Revised I/M program             Emissions increase
                          Year                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                VOC             NOX             VOC             NOX             VOC             NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007....................................................           15.94           52.65           17.03           54.74            1.09            2.09
2009....................................................           12.76           42.20           13.59           43.69            0.83            1.49
2012....................................................            9.86           31.15           10.80           32.25            0.94            1.09
2015....................................................            7.62           23.20            8.36           23.98            0.75            0.78
2025....................................................            4.91           13.29            4.95           13.31            0.05            0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised Illinois I/M program produces fewer reductions of VOC
and NOX emissions which are contributors to the formation of
ground-level ozone and fine particular matter (PM2.5). Thus,
the increase in VOC and NOX needs to be offset with
equivalent (or greater) emissions reductions from another control
measures in order to demonstrate non-interference with the 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS. Although the program also results in fewer
reductions of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, substitute CO emissions
reductions are not needed for this demonstration, because both areas in
Illinois are attaining the CO NAAQS and CO levels in both areas are
well below the standard. IEPA has determined that it is unlikely that
the amendments to the Illinois I/M program will interfere with either
areas' ability to continue to attain the CO NAAQS.
    To address the projected loss of VOC and NOX emission
reductions, IEPA reviewed its records of permitted emissions sources in
both nonattainment areas in Illinois and identified those sources that
have ceased operation since 2002. In the Chicago nonattainment area,
IEPA identified 1,168 facilities with permitted VOC emissions and 687
facilities with permitted NOX emissions that have
permanently closed and have expired permits that have been revoked. In
the Metro-East St. Louis nonattainment area, IEPA identified 82
facilities with permitted VOC emissions and 39 facilities with
permitted NOX emissions that have permanently closed and
have expired permits that have been revoked. The expiration and
revocation of these sources' permits allows the state to use the
emission credits associated with them for other purposes under the SIP
and makes such reductions permanent and enforceable. IEPA review of
emissions from shutdown facilities shows cumulative reductions of 50.32
tpd of VOC and 121.29 tpd of NOX in the Chicago area in 2012
and 1.97 tpd of VOC and 1.74 tpd of NOX in the Metro-East
St. Louis area in 2012.
    Tables 5 and 6 below compare the increases in VOC and
NOX emissions from the revised I/M program to the cumulative
reductions in VOC and NOX emissions from facility shutdowns.
Table 5 shows that emission offsets for both VOC and NOX
exceed the increase in emissions resulting from the revised I/M program
in the Chicago

nonattainment area from 2007 through 2012. Table 6 shows that emission
offsets for VOC exceed the increase in emissions resulting from the
revised I/M program in the Metro-East St. Louis nonattainment area from
2007 through 2012. However, in 2007 and 2008, increases in
NOX from the revised I/M program exceeded the offsets of
NOX from shutdown facilities in the Metro-East St. Louis
nonattainment area.

               Table 5--NOX and VOC Emissions From Closed Facilities in Chicago Nonattainment Area
                                                      [tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Chicago nonattainment area
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Cumulative                              Cumulative
                                  I/M program change   facility shutdown  I/M program change   facility shutdown
              Year                emissions increase       emissions      emissions increase       emissions
                                         (VOC)          reduction (VOC)          (NOX)          reduction (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007............................                7.65               33.16               13.95              100.71
2008............................                6.15               39.96               11.22              109.33
2009............................                5.19               45.00                9.51              117.95
2010............................                4.28               48.11                7.54              120.58
2011............................                3.60               49.30                6.29              121.24
2012............................                4.85               50.32                4.84              121.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Table 6--NOX and VOC Emissions From Closed Facilities in Metro-East St. Louis Nonattainment Area
                                                      [tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Metro-East St. Louis nonattainment area
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Cumulative                              Cumulative
                                  I/M program change   facility shutdown  I/M program change   facility shutdown
              Year                emissions increase       emissions      emissions increase       emissions
                                         (VOC           reduction (VOC)          (NOX)          reduction (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007............................                1.09                1.64                2.09                1.39
2008............................                0.94                1.70                1.80                1.49
2009............................                0.83                1.83                1.49                1.52
2010............................                0.75                1.85                1.41                1.56
2011............................                0.68                1.94                1.28                1.71
2012............................                0.94                1.97                1.09                1.74
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA policy allows for substitution between VOC and NOX
emissions in its guidance on reasonable further progress. This guidance
recommends that states assume, as an approximation, that equivalent
percent changes in the area's inventory for the respective pollutant
yield an equivalent change in ozone levels. For example, decreasing
area NOX emissions by 3 percent would have the same effect
as decreasing area VOC emissions by 3 percent. Stated another way, if
an area has twice as many tons of NOX emissions as VOC
emissions, then 2 tons of NOX emissions would be assumed to
have the same effect on ozone as 1 ton of VOC emissions. Following this
approach, IEPA used a 1 VOC to 2.04 NOX conversion ratio for
the Metro-East St. Louis area.
    Table 7 below summarizes IEPA's I/M emissions make-up demonstration
for the Metro-East St. Louis area and takes into consideration the VOC
to NOX substitution approach discussed above. Based on the
use of permanent, enforceable, contemporaneous, surplus emissions
reductions achieved through the shutdown of permitted emissions
sources, EPA believes that the revisions to the Illinois I/M program do
not interfere with both areas' ability to demonstrate compliance with
the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

 Table 7--Metro-East St. Louis Area Comparison of NOX Emissions Shortfall to Excess VOC Reductions Applying VOC
                                           to NOX Substitution Policy
                                                      [tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Cumulative          Excess VOC
                                                                           facility shutdown    emissions using
                        Year                             NOX emissions        excess VOC        the VOC to NOX
                                                           shortfall           emissions        emissions ratio
                                                                              reductions           (1:2.04)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007................................................                0.70                0.55                1.12
2008................................................                0.31                0.76                1.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also examined whether the amendments to the approved I/M
program in Illinois have interfered with attainment of other air
quality standards. The Illinois I/M program was implemented to address
only the ozone NAAQS and EPA has no reason to believe that the
amendments to the approved I/M program have caused or

will cause the nonattainment of the NAAQS for CO, lead, nitrogen
dioxide, or sulfur dioxide. The Metro-East St. Louis area is designated
as nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS and as discussed
before, NOX is a precursor to PM2.5 formation.
However, as demonstrated above, permanent, enforceable,
contemporaneous, surplus emissions reductions achieved through the
shutdown of permitted VOC and NOX emissions sources have
offset the minor increase in NOX emissions resulting from
the change to the I/M program. Therefore, the changes to the I/M
program do not interfere with attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
In addition, EPA believes that the amendments to the approved I/M
program in Illinois will not interfere with the ability of the Chicago
and Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas to meet any other
CAA requirement.
    Based on the above discussion and the state's 100(l) demonstration,
EPA believes that the changes to the Illinois I/M program will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in either
the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis nonattainment areas and would not
interfere with any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and thus,
are approvable under CAA section 110(l).

V. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the Illinois ozone SIP
submitted on November 29, 2012, concerning the I/M program in the
Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas in Illinois.
EPA finds that the revisions meet all applicable requirements and will
not interfere with reasonable further progress or attainment of any of
the NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. 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 CAA; 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 1, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-27276 Filed 11-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 221 (Friday, November 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 80376]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25488]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Percentage Rates of Covered
Aviation Employees for the Period of January 1, 2024, Through December
31, 2024

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA has determined that the minimum random drug and
alcohol testing percentage rates for the period January 1, 2024,
through December 31, 2024, will remain at 25 percent of safety-
sensitive employees for random drug testing and 10 percent of safety-
sensitive employees for random alcohol testing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Vicky Dunne, Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement Division,
Program Policy Branch; Email [email protected]; Telephone (202)
267-8442.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Discussion: Pursuant to 14 CFR 120.109(b), the FAA Administrator's
decision on whether to change the minimum annual random drug testing
rate is based on the reported random drug test positive rate for the
entire aviation industry. If the reported random drug test positive
rate is less than 1.00%, the Administrator may continue the minimum
random drug testing rate at 25%. In 2022, the random drug test positive
rate was 0.786%. Therefore, the minimum random drug testing rate will
remain at 25% for calendar year 2023.
    Similarly, 14 CFR 120.217(c), requires the decision on the minimum
annual random alcohol testing rate to be based on the random alcohol
test violation rate. If the violation rate remains less than 0.50%, the
Administrator may continue the minimum random alcohol testing rate at
10%. In 2022, the random alcohol test violation rate was 0.150%.
Therefore, the minimum random alcohol testing rate will remain at 10%
for calendar year 2022.
    If you have questions about how the annual random testing
percentage rates are determined, please refer to the Code of Federal
Regulations title 14, section 120.109(b) (for drug testing), and
120.217(c) (for alcohol testing).

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Susan Northrup,
Federal Air Surgeon.
[FR Doc. 2023-25488 Filed 11-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                                                                  OMB Control No.2060-0347

                                              STATEMENT OF ENERGY DESIGN INTENT                                                               September 5, 2007  FACILITY INFORMATION D 	 Facility Name and Location  School                                                 Dallas, TX - United States	75202	Building	 	 Owner/Company  	 Facility Characteristics

        Address   	 K-12 School  90,000 Sq. Ft.

Total Gross Floor Area  90,000 Sq. Ft.         Contact Name

                                         Phone   	 Design Energy (kBtu)1

                                         Email   	 Electricity	2,217,800

Natural Gas 600,000

 DESIGN ENERGY PERFOD̀

  Energy	DESIGN	ENERGY STAR        EPA Energy Performance Rating (1  -  100)	88	75        Percent Energy Reduction (%)2	36	20        Site Energy Use Intensity (kBtu/sf/yr)	31.3	39.4        Total Annual Site Energy (kBtu)	2,817,800	3,543,974        Total Annual Energy Cost ($)	$ 49,156	$ 61,824   Pollution Emissions (1000 lbs/yr)        CO2	846	1,060

 PROFESSIONAL VERIFICATION D

 Prepared By  	 Firm Name  	 Address

Licensed Architect/Engineer                               Professional Stamp                               Signature & Date

 Phone	 	 Email

 Architect of Record (if different from above)  Name

  	  Firm Name

  	  Phone

  	  Email

                                                       The facility was designed and specified to meet the Design Energy performance calculations shown on this Statement of Energy Design Intent.

 1 Target Finder uses data fro equipm  2 Percent energy reduced is̀

            This

                                                 STATEMENT OF ENERGY DESIGN INTENT                                                               September 5, 2007

  Facility Name and Location   School   Dallas, TX - United States	75202

  Facility Characteristics (Detail) K-12   School     Floor   Area  of	of PCs  Students  Hours/Week Facility  Air-Conditioned Heated

  90000   Sq. Ft.  600

   100

 70 Hours

  Yes

 100

      100

10

   Yes

Gross  Number  Number Operating	Cooking %	%	Months Ventilated

  Additional

This document was generated from Target Finder, an EPA tool located on the ENERGY STAR Web site, www.energystar.gov.   The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3.75 hours per response.  Send comments on the Agency's need for this information,   the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques   to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.      EPA Form 5900-22	Page 2 of 2


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19394-19395]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07586]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2014-0007]

Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Announcement of ACCSH and ACCSH Workgroup meetings.

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

SUMMARY: ACCSH will meet May 8, 2014, in Washington, DC. In conjunction
with the ACCSH meeting, ACCSH Workgroups will meet May 7, 2014.

DATES: ACCSH meeting: ACCSH will meet from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., e.t.,
Thursday, May 8, 2014.
    ACCSH Workgroup meetings: ACCSH Workgroups will meet Wednesday, May
7, 2014. (For Workgroup meeting times, see the schedule under
``Workgroup Meetings'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
notice.)
    Submit (postmark, send, transmit) comments, requests to address the
ACCSH meeting, speaker presentations (written or electronic), and
requests for special accommodations for the ACCSH meeting and ACCSH
Workgroup meetings, by April 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submission of comments, requests to speak, and speaker
presentations for the ACCSH meeting: Submit comments, requests to
speak, and speaker presentations for the ACCSH meeting, using one of
the following methods:
    Electronically: Submit materials, including attachments,
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the on-line instructions for submissions.
    Facsimile (Fax): If the submission, including attachments, does not
exceed 10 pages, you may fax it to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Regular mail, express mail, hand delivery, or messenger (courier)
service: Submit materials to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-
2014-0007, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY (877)
889-5627). OSHA's Docket Office accepts deliveries (hand deliveries,
express mail, and messenger service) during normal business hours, 8:15
a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t., weekdays.
    Instructions: Submissions must include the agency name and docket
number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No. OSHA-2014-0007).
Due to security-related procedures, submissions by regular mail may
experience significant delays. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office
for information about security procedures for making submissions. For
additional information on submitting comments, requests to speak, and
speaker presentations, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this notice.
    OSHA will post comments, requests to speak, and speaker
presentations, including any personal information provided, without
change, at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions you
about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers
and birthdates.
    Location of the ACCSH meeting: ACCSH and ACCSH Workgroups will meet
in Room N-3437 A-C, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20210.
    Requests for special accommodations: Please submit requests for
special accommodations to attend the ACCSH meeting and ACCSH Workgroup
meetings to Ms. Gretta Jameson, OSHA, Office of Communications, Room N-
3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For press inquiries: Mr. Frank
Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information about ACCSH and ACCSH meetings: Mr. Damon
Bonneau, OSHA, Directorate of Construction, Room N-3468, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210;

telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies of this
Federal Register notice are available at http://www.regulations.gov.
This notice, as well as news releases and other relevant information,
also are available on the OSHA Web page at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

ACCSH Meeting

    Background: ACCSH will meet May 8, 2014, in Washington, DC. The
meeting is open to the public. OSHA transcribes ACCSH meetings and
prepares detailed minutes of meetings. OSHA places the transcript and
minutes in the public docket for the meeting. The docket also includes
speaker presentations, comments, and other materials submitted to
ACCSH.
    ACCSH advises the Secretary of Labor and the Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational Safety and Health (Assistant Secretary) in the
formulation of standards affecting the construction industry, and on
policy matters arising in the administration of the safety and health
provisions under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act
(Construction Safety Act (CSA)) (40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) and the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.) (see also 29 CFR 1911.10 and 1912.3). In addition, the OSH Act
and CSA require that OSHA consult with ACCSH before the Agency proposes
any occupational safety and health standard affecting construction
activities (29 CFR 1911.10; 40 U.S.C. 3704).
    Meeting agenda: The tentative agenda for this meeting includes:
     Assistant Secretary's Agency update and remarks;
     Directorate of Construction update on rulemaking projects;
     Proposed rule to update OSHA's standard on Eye and Face
Protection in construction. The proposed rule would update the American
National Standards Institute consensus standards referenced;
     OSHA's Proposed Rule for Beryllium: Alternatives for
Construction;
     Proposed amendments and corrections to OSHA's Cranes and
Derricks standards;
     The following items from the proposed Standards
Improvement Project IV rulemaking:
    1. Update the Marine Material-Handling standard to refer to the
current Longshoring standards;
    2. Update the Underground Construction standard on Diesel-Powered
Equipment to refer to the current MSHA standard;
    3. Clarify Signs, Signals, and Barricades, to require use of
traffic control devices and signs, and clarify that the design and use
of traffic control devices must conform to the Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUCTD), and eliminate duplicative and
unnecessary language;
     Presentation on Power Transmission and Distribution; and,
     Public Comment Period.

Workgroup Meetings

    The following ACCSH Workgroups will meet May 7, 2014:
     Health Hazards, Emerging Issues, and Prevention through
Design: 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
     Temporary Workers: 1 to 3 p.m.
     Training and Outreach: 3:15 to 5:15 p.m.
    ACCSH Workgroup meetings are open to the public. For additional
information on ACCSH Workgroup meetings or participating in them,
please contact Mr. Bonneau or look on the ACCSH page on OSHA's Web page
at: http://www.osha.gov.
    Attending the meeting: Individuals attending the meetings at the
U.S. Department of Labor must enter the building at the visitors'
entrance, 3rd and C Streets NW., and pass through building security.
Attendees must have valid government-issued photo identification (such
as a driver's license) to enter the building. For additional
information about building-security measures for attending ACCSH
meetings, please contact Ms. Jameson (see ``Requests for special
accommodations'' in the ADDRESSES section of this notice).
    Requests to speak and speaker presentations: Attendees who want to
address ACCSH at the meeting must submit a request to speak, as well as
any written or electronic presentation, by April 18, 2014, using one of
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. The request must state:
     The amount of time requested to speak;
     The interest you represent (e.g., business, organization,
affiliation), if any; and
     A brief outline of your presentation.
    PowerPoint presentations and other electronic materials must be
compatible with PowerPoint 2010 and other Microsoft Office 2010
formats.
    Alternately, at the ACCSH meeting, you may request to address ACCSH
briefly by signing the public-comment request sheet and listing the
topic(s) you will address. You also must provide 20 hard copies of any
materials, written or electronic, you want to present to ACCSH.
    The ACCSH Chair may grant requests to address ACCSH as time and
circumstances permit.
    Public docket of the ACCSH meeting: OSHA will place comments,
requests to speak, and speaker presentations, including any personal
information you provide, in the public docket of this ACCSH meeting
without change, and those documents may be available online at: http://www.regulations.gov. OSHA also places in the public docket the meeting
transcript, meeting minutes, documents presented at the ACCSH meeting,
and other documents pertaining to the ACCSH and ACCSH Workgroup
meetings. These documents are available online at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Access to the public record of ACCSH and ACCSH Workgroup meetings:
To read or download documents in the public docket of this ACCSH
meeting, go to Docket No. OSHA-2014-0007 at: http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov index also lists
all documents in the public record for these meetings; however, some
documents (e.g., copyrighted materials) are not publicly available
through that Web page. All documents in the public record, including
materials not available through http://www.regulations.gov, are
available for inspection and copying in the OSHA Docket Office (see
ADDRESSES section). Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
making submissions to, or obtaining materials from, the public docket.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice under the authority granted by 29 U.S.C. 656; 40 U.S.C. 3704; 5
U.S.C. App. 2; 29 CFR parts 1911 and 1912; 41 CFR part 102; and
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    Signed at Washington, DC on April 1, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-07586 Filed 4-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P