Baseline Memo
Effects of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b Baseline Changes: The 2009 Final Rule vs. 2011 Proposed Rule
Purpose
This memo compares the 2009 Final Rule to the 2011 Proposed Rule (covering 2012 through 2014 allowances) in light of proposed changes to production and consumption baselines. The memo assumes approximately the same amount of consumption allowances would be provided as in the 2009 Final Rule, and that production and consumption would still be allocated at the same percentage. It does not discuss the possibility of recoupment. Should recoupment occur, it could change the numbers included in this memo. Additionally, the Proposed Rule provides an option of reducing consumption allocations and increasing production allocations; both of these actions would further alter the numbers in this memo.
Background
In the 2009 Final Rule, the following amounts were allocated to HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b consumption between 2012 and 2014:

                                     2012
                                     2013
                                     2014
                                    HCFC-22
                                   40,700 MT
                                   35,900 MT
                                   31,100 MT
                                   HCFC-142b
                                    100 MT
                                    100 MT
                                    100 MT

EPA is proposing to use the same methodology to provide allowances in the 2011 Proposed Rule as it did in the 2009 Final Rule, and is proposing one allocation option where the number of consumption allowances would be about the same; however, the actual number of production allowances given to companies would be different in this rule than in the 2009 Final Rule, regardless of which allocation option is chosen. This is a result of the way EPA allocates production and consumption allowances under Title VI of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
To allocate allowances, EPA is proposing to continue using the following formula for each HCFC:
      Step 1: Add up all company-specific consumption baselines.
      Step 2: Determine how much consumption the market needs for a given year, taking into account recycled and reclaimed material.
      Step 3: Divide calendar-year consumption needs (Step 2) by the aggregate amount of baseline allowances (Step 1).
      Step 4: The resulting percentage is listed in the table at section 82.16 and becomes what each company is allowed to consume in a given control period.
Historically, EPA has allocated the same percentage of baseline allowances for HCFC production as it does for HCFC consumption.
In 2012 through 2014, EPA is proposing to allow for at least 12,500 MT of HCFC-22 demand to be met with recovered and reclaimed material. Since the aggregate HCFC-22 baselines are increasing due to Arkema and Solvay's 2008 inter-pollutant transfers, the percentage of baseline allowed in 2012 through 2014 must decrease in order to issue the same, or fewer, calendar-year allowances. While consumption would remain at roughly the same level, there would be slight differences in the number of production allowances for HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b.
 This occurs because the aggregate HCFC-22 production baseline would increase less than the aggregate consumption baseline relative to the 2009 Final Rule due to differences in whether production allowances, consumption allowances, or both were transferred. Arkema, Inc. transferred both production and consumption baseline allowances. Solvay, on the other hand, only transferred its baseline consumption allowances. The increase in aggregate baseline production would therefore be less than the increase in aggregate baseline consumption (see the table below). Since the proposed allocation percentage (not considering the proposed adjustment of 11 to 47 percent) would be chosen with the goal of getting the aggregate number of consumption allowances to match what is in the 2009 rule, when that same percentage is applied to the production baseline, calendar-year HCFC-22 production would decrease. For HCFC-142b, using the same allocation percentage for production as for consumption would result in more production allowances being allocated than in the 2009 Final Rule due to the differences in whether production allowances, consumption allowances, or both were transferred, as discussed above. The end result would be more HCFC-142b production allowances and fewer HCFC-22 production allowances relative to the 2009 Final Rule.
Additionally, EPA is proposing several ways to provide or not provide recoupment allowances (see the memo to docket entitled "Recoupment Options" or the preamble text in section III.B.4. for more specifics on each option). The Agency is also proposing to reduce the consumption allocation by 11 to 47 percent (see the memo to the docket entitled, "Analysis of HCFC-22 Servicing Needs in the U.S. Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Sector: Additional Considerations for Estimating Virgin Demand").
HCFC-22 Baseline in the 2009 Final Rule vs. 2011 Proposed Rule

                                2009 Final Rule
                              2011 Proposed Rule

                                  Consumption
                                  Production
                                  Consumption
                                  Production
                        Aggregate HCFC-22 Baseline (MT)
                                    119,384
                                    110,619
                                    141,865
                                    129,093
                             % Change in Baseline
                                       -
                                       -
                                     18.9%
                                     16.7%
                       Aggregate HCFC-142b Baseline (MT)
                                    21,089
                                    25,090
                                     2,047
                                     9,444
                             % Change in Baseline
                                       -
                                       -
                                    -90.3%
                                    -62.4%

In the case of both HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b, production and consumption allowances would change by different percentages: HCFC-22 baseline consumption allowances would increase by about 2 percent more than baseline production allowances. HCFC-142b baseline consumption allowances would decrease by about 28 percent more than baseline production allowances.

HCFC-22 Allocations for 2012-2014 in 2009 Final Rule vs. 2011 Proposed Rule (Excluding Recoupment and Proposed Adjustments)

                                2009 Final Rule
                              2011 Proposed Rule

                                  Consumption
                                  Production
                                  Consumption
                                  Production
                                   2012 (MT)
                                    40,710
                                    37,721
                                    40,715
                                    37,050
                                   % Change
                                       -
                                       -
                                     0.0%
                                     -1.8%
                                   2013 (MT)
                                    35,935
                                    33,296
                                    35,892
                                    32,660
                                   % Change
                                       -
                                       -
                                    -0.12%
                                     -1.9%
                                   2014 (MT)
                                    31,159
                                    28,872
                                    31,069
                                    28,271
                                   % Change
                                       -
                                       -
                                     -0.3%
                                     -2.1%

Slight rounding differences result in small changes in production and consumption, but since production baselines would increase by a smaller percentage than consumption baselines, fewer calendar-year production allowances would be allocated compared to the 2009 Final Rule by using the same percentage of baseline as for consumption allowances. Again, this chart does not include the proposed adjustment to consumption, or the option of increasing production allowances relative to the 2009 Final Rule.
HCFC-142b Allocations for 2012-2014 in 2009 Final Rule vs. 2011 Proposed Rule (Excluding Recoupment)

                                2009 Final Rule
                              2011 Proposed Rule

                                  Consumption
                                  Production
                                  Consumption
                                  Production
                                2012-2014 (MT)
                                      99
                                      118
                                      100
                                      463
                                   % Change
                                       -
                                       -
                                     1.2%
                                    292.4%

Slight rounding differences result in small changes in production and consumption, but since production baselines would decrease by a smaller percentage than consumption baselines, significantly more calendar-year production allowances would be allocated compared to the 2009 Final Rule by using the same percentage of baseline as for consumption allowances.


[Federal Register: January 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 4373]
[DOCID:fr27ja10-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2677-019]

City of Kaukauna, WI; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

January 20, 2010.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 F.R. 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for a new license for the 8-megawatt (MW)
Badger-Rapide Croche Hydroelectric Project located on the Fox River in
Outagamie County, Wisconsin, and has prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
In the EA, Commission staff analyze the potential environmental effects
of relicensing the project and conclude that issuing a new license for
the project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access documents. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    Comments on the EA should be filed within 30 days from the issuance
date of this notice, and should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A,
Washington, DC 20426. Please affix ``Badger-Rapide Croche Project No.
2677-019'' to all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via
Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site under the ``eFiling'' link. For further
information, contact John Smith at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1534 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Load fraction means the actual heat input of an energy recovery unit divided by heat input during the performance test that established the minimum sorbent injection rate or minimum activated carbon injection rate, expressed as a fraction (e.g., for 50 percent load the load fraction is 0.5).
Low-level radioactive waste means waste material which contains radioactive nuclides emitting primarily beta or gamma radiation, or both, in concentrations or quantities that exceed applicable federal or state standards for unrestricted release. Low-level radioactive waste is not high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2)).
Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused, in part, by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.
Minimum voltage or amperage means 90 percent of the lowest test-run average voltage or amperage to the electrostatic precipitator measured during the most recent particulate matter or mercury performance test demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limits.
Modification or modified CISWI means a CISWI that has been changed later than August 7, 2013, and that meets one of two criteria:
(1) The cumulative cost of the changes over the life of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of building and installing the CISWI (not including the cost of land) updated to current costs (current dollars). To determine what systems are within the boundary of the CISWI used to calculate these costs, see the definition of CISWI; and
(2) Any physical change in the CISWI or change in the method of operating it that increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted for which section 129 or section 111 of the Clean Air Act has established standards.
Municipal solid waste or municipal-type solid waste means household, commercial/retail, or institutional waste. Household waste includes material discarded by residential dwellings, hotels, motels, and other similar permanent or temporary housing. Commercial/retail waste includes material discarded by stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses, nonmanufacturing activities at industrial facilities, and other similar establishments or facilities. Institutional waste includes materials discarded by schools, by hospitals (nonmedical), by nonmanufacturing activities at prisons and government facilities, and other similar establishments or facilities. Household, commercial/retail, and institutional waste does include yard waste and refuse-derived fuel. Household, commercial/retail, and institutional waste does not include used oil; sewage sludge; wood pallets; construction, renovation, and demolition wastes (which include railroad ties and telephone poles); clean wood; industrial process or manufacturing wastes; medical waste; or motor vehicles (including motor vehicle parts or vehicle fluff).
Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission of light and obscure the view of an object in the background.
Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the following midnight during which any amount of solid waste is combusted at any time in the CISWI.
Oxygen analyzer system means all equipment required to determine the oxygen content of a gas stream and used to monitor oxygen in the boiler or process heater flue gas, boiler/process heater, firebox, or other appropriate location. This definition includes oxygen trim systems and certified oxygen CEMS. The source owner or operator is responsible to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate the oxygen analyzer system in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
Oxygen trim system means a system of monitors that is used to maintain excess air at the desired level in a combustion device over its operating range. A typical system consists of a flue gas oxygen and/or carbon monoxide monitor that automatically provides a feedback signal to the combustion air controller or draft controller.
Part reclamation unit means a unit that burns coatings off parts (e.g., tools, equipment) so that the parts can be reconditioned and reused.
Particulate matter means total particulate matter emitted from CISWIs as measured by Method 5 or Method 29 of appendix A of this part.
Pathological waste means waste material consisting of only human or animal remains, anatomical parts, and/or tissue, the bags/containers used to collect and transport the waste material, and animal bedding (if applicable).
Performance evaluation means the conduct of relative accuracy testing, calibration error testing, and other measurements used in validating the continuous monitoring system data.
Performance test means the collection of data resulting from the execution of a test method (usually three emission test runs) used to demonstrate compliance with a relevant emission standard as specified in the performance test section of the relevant standard.
Process change means any of the following physical or operational changes:
(1) A physical change (maintenance activities excluded) to the CISWI which may increase the emission rate of any air pollutant to which a standard applies;
(2) An operational change to the CISWI where a new type of non-hazardous secondary material is being combusted;
(3) A physical change (maintenance activities excluded) to the air pollution control devices used to comply with the emission limits for the CISWI (e.g., replacing an electrostatic precipitator with a fabric filter); and
(4) An operational change to the air pollution control devices used to comply with the emission limits for the affected CISWI (e.g., change in the sorbent injection rate used for activated carbon injection).
Rack reclamation unit means a unit that burns the coatings off racks used to hold small items for application of a coating. The unit burns the coating overspray off the rack so the rack can be reused.
Raw mill means a ball or tube mill, vertical roller mill or other size reduction equipment, that is not part of an in-line kiln/raw mill, used to grind feed to the appropriate size. Moisture may be added or removed from the feed during the grinding operation. If the raw mill is used to remove moisture from feed materials, it is also, by definition, a raw material dryer. The raw mill also includes the air separator associated with the raw mill.
Reconstruction means rebuilding a CISWI and meeting two criteria:
(1) The reconstruction begins on or after August 7, 2013; and
(2) The cumulative cost of the construction over the life of the incineration unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of building and installing the CISWI (not including land) updated to current costs (current dollars). To determine what systems are within the boundary of the CISWI used to calculate these costs, see the definition of CISWI.
Refuse-derived fuel means a type of municipal solid waste produced by processing municipal solid waste through shredding and size classification. This includes all classes of refuse-derived fuel including two fuels:
(1) Low-density fluff refuse-derived fuel through densified refuse-derived fuel; and
(2) Pelletized refuse-derived fuel.
Responsible official means one of the following:
(1) For a corporation: A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-making functions for the corporation, or a duly authorized representative of such person if the representative is responsible for the overall operation of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities applying for or subject to a permit and either:
(i) The facilities employ more than 250 persons or have gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars); or
(ii) The delegation of authority to such representatives is approved in advance by the permitting authority;
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: a general partner or the proprietor, respectively;
(3) For a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency: Either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. For the purposes of this part, a principal executive officer of a Federal agency includes the chief executive officer having responsibility for the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency (e.g., a Regional Administrator of EPA); or
(4) For affected facilities:
(i) The designated representative in so far as actions, standards, requirements, or prohibitions under Title IV of the Clean Air Act or the regulations promulgated thereunder are concerned; or
(ii) The designated representative for any other purposes under part 60.
Shutdown means, for incinerators and small, remote incinerators, the period of time after all waste has been combusted in the primary chamber.
Small, remote incinerator means an incinerator that combusts solid waste (as that term is defined by the Administrator in 40 CFR part 241) and combusts 3 tons per day or less solid waste and is more than 25 miles driving distance to the nearest municipal solid waste landfill.
Soil treatment unit means a unit that thermally treats petroleum-contaminated soils for the sole purpose of site remediation. A soil treatment unit may be direct-fired or indirect fired. A soil treatment unit is not an incinerator, a waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small, remote incinerator under this subpart.
Solid waste means the term solid waste as defined in 40 CFR 241.2.
Solid waste incineration unit means a distinct operating unit of any facility which combusts any solid waste (as that term is defined by the Administrator in 40 CFR part 241) material from commercial or industrial establishments or the general public (including single and multiple residences, hotels and motels). Such term does not include incinerators or other units required to have a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The term "solid waste incineration unit" does not include:
(1) Materials recovery facilities (including primary or secondary smelters) which combust waste for the primary purpose of recovering metals;
(2) Qualifying small power production facilities, as defined in section 3(17)(C) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 769(17)(C)), or qualifying cogeneration facilities, as defined in section 3(18)(B) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(B)), which burn homogeneous waste (such as units which burn tires or used oil, but not including refuse-derived fuel) for the production of electric energy or in the case of qualifying cogeneration facilities which burn homogeneous waste for the production of electric energy and steam or forms of useful energy (such as heat) which are used for industrial, commercial, heating or cooling purposes; or
(3) Air curtain incinerators provided that such incinerators only burn wood wastes, yard wastes and clean lumber and that such air curtain incinerators comply with opacity limitations to be established by the Administrator by rule.
Space heater means a unit that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 279.23. A space heater is not an incinerator, a waste-burning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small, remote incinerator under this subpart.
Standard conditions, when referring to units of measure, means a temperature of 68 °F (20 °C) and a pressure of 1 atmosphere (101.3 kilopascals).
Startup period means, for incinerators and small, remote incinerators, the period of time between the activation of the system and the first charge to the unit.
Useful thermal energy means energy (i.e., steam, hot water, or process heat) that meets the minimum operating temperature and/or pressure required by any energy use system that uses energy provided by the affected energy recovery unit.
Waste-burning kiln means a kiln that is heated, in whole or in part, by combusting solid waste (as the term is defined by the Administrator in 40 CFR part 241). Secondary materials used in Portland cement kilns shall not be deemed to be combusted unless they are introduced into the flame zone in the hot end of the kiln or mixed with the precalciner fuel.
Wet scrubber means an add-on air pollution control device that uses an aqueous or alkaline scrubbing liquor to collect particulate matter (including nonvaporous metals and condensed organics) and/or to absorb and neutralize acid gases.
Wood waste means untreated wood and untreated wood products, including tree stumps (whole or chipped), trees, tree limbs (whole or chipped), bark, sawdust, chips, scraps, slabs, millings, and shavings. Wood waste does not include:
(1) Grass, grass clippings, bushes, shrubs, and clippings from bushes and shrubs from residential, commercial/retail, institutional, or industrial sources as part of maintaining yards or other private or public lands;
(2) Construction, renovation, or demolition wastes; or
(3) Clean lumber.
Table 1 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60 -- Model Rule -- Increments of Progress and Compliance Schedules
Comply with these increments of progress
By these dates[1]
Increment 1 -- Submit final control plan
(Dates to be specified in state plan).
Increment 2 -- Final compliance
(Dates to be specified in state plan).[2]
[1]	Site-specific schedules can be used at the discretion of the state.
[2]	The date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of state plan approval or December 1, 2005 for CISWIs that commenced construction on or before November 30, 1999. The date can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state plan or February 7, 2018, for CISWIs that commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010.

Table 2 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60 -- Model Rule -- Emission Limitations That Apply to Incinerators Before [Date to be specified in state plan] [1]
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission limitation [2]
Using this averaging time [3]
And determining compliance using this method [3]
Cadmium
0.004 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A of this part)
Carbon monoxide
157 parts per million by dry volume
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 10, 10A, or 10B, of appendix A of this part)
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis)
0.41 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 23 of appendix A of this part)
Hydrogen chloride
62 parts per million by dry volume
3-run average (For Method 26, collect a minimum volume of 120 liters per run. For Method 26A, collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter per run)
Performance test (Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8).
Lead
0.04 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 29 of appendix A of this part)
Mercury
0.47 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 29 or 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8) or ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008).[4]
Opacity
10 percent
Three 1-hour blocks consisting of ten 6-minute average opacity values
Performance test (Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4).
Nitrogen oxides
388 parts per million by dry volume
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Methods 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4).
Particulate matter
70 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 5 or 29 of appendix A of this part)
Sulfur dioxide
20 parts per million by dry volume
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 6 or 6c of appendix A of this part)
[1]
	Applies only to incinerators subject to the CISWI standards through a state plan or the Federal plan prior to June 4, 2010. The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state plan or February 7, 2018.
[2]	All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions.
[3]
	In lieu of performance testing, you may use a CEMS or, for mercury, an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system, to demonstrate initial and continuing compliance with an emissions limit, as long as you comply with the CEMS or integrated sorbent trap monitoring system requirements applicable to the specific pollutant in § 60.2710 and § 60.2730. As prescribed in § 60.2710(u), if you use a CEMS or integrated sorbent trap monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with an emissions limit, your averaging time is a 30-day rolling average of 1-hour arithmetic average emission concentrations.
[4]	Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17.

Table 3 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60 -- Model Rule -- Operating Limits for Wet Scrubbers
For these operating parameters
You must establish these operating limits
And monitor using these minimum frequencies

Data measurement
Data recording
Averaging time
Charge rate
Maximum charge rate
Continuous
Every hour
Daily (batch units). 3-hour rolling (continuous and intermittent units) [1]
Pressure drop across the wet scrubber or amperage to wet scrubber
Minimum pressure drop or amperage
Continuous
Every 15 minutes
3-hour rolling [1]
Scrubber liquor flow rate
Minimum flow rate
Continuous
Every 15 minutes
3-hour rolling [1]
Scrubber liquor pH
Minimum pH
Continuous
Every 15 minutes
3-hour rolling [1]
[1]	Calculated each hour as the average of the previous 3 operating hours.

Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60 -- Model Rule -- Toxic Equivalency Factors
Dioxin/furan isomer
Toxic equivalency factor
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
0.01
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
0.001
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran
0.1
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran
0.5
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran
0.05
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran
0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran
0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran
0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran
0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran
0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated dibenzofuran
0.01
octachlorinated dibenzofuran
0.001

Table 5 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60 -- Model Rule -- Summary of Reporting Requirements [1]
Report
Due date
Contents
Reference
Waste Management Plan
No later than the date specified in table 1 for submittal of the final control plan
Waste management plan
§ 60.2755.
Initial Test Report
No later than 60 days following the initial performance test
Complete test report for the initial performance test
The values for the site-specific operating limits
Installation of bag leak detection systems for fabric filters
§ 60.2760.
Annual report
No later than 12 months following the submission of the initial test report. Subsequent reports are to be submitted no more than 12 months following the previous report
Name and address
Statement and signature by responsible official
Date of report
Values for the operating limits
Highest recorded 3-hour average and the lowest 3-hour average, as applicable, (or 30-day average, if applicable) for each operating parameter recorded for the calendar year being reported
If a performance test was conducted during the reporting period, the results of the test
If a performance test was not conducted during the reporting period, a statement that the requirements of § 60.2720(a) were met
Documentation of periods when all qualified CISWI operators were unavailable for more than 8 hours but less than 2 weeks
If you are conducting performance tests once every 3 years consistent with § 60.2720(a), the date of the last 2 performance tests, a comparison of the emission level you achieved in the last 2 performance tests to the 75 percent emission limit threshold required in § 60.2720(a) and a statement as to whether there have been any operational changes since the last performance test that could increase emissions
§§ 60.2765 and 60.2770.
Emission limitation or operating limit deviation report
By August 1 of that year for data collected during the first half of the calendar year. By February 1 of the following year for data collected during the second half of the calendar year
Dates and times of deviation
Averaged and recorded data for those dates
Duration and causes of each deviation and the corrective actions taken
Copy of operating limit monitoring data and any test reports
Dates, times and causes for monitor downtime incidents
§ 60.2775 and 60.2780.
Qualified Operator Deviation Notification
Within 10 days of deviation
Statement of cause of deviation
Description of efforts to have an accessible qualified operator
The date a qualified operator will be accessible
§ 60.2785(a)(1).
Qualified Operator Deviation Status Report
Every 4 weeks following deviation
Description of efforts to have an accessible qualified operator
The date a qualified operator will be accessible
Request for approval to continue operation
§ 60.2785(a)(2).
Qualified Operator Deviation Notification of Resumed Operation
Prior to resuming operation
Notification that you are resuming operation
§ 60.2785(b)
[1]	This table is only a summary, see the referenced sections of the rule for the complete requirements.

Table 6 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60 -- Model Rule -- Emission Limitations That Apply to Incinerators on and After [Date to be specified in state plan] [1]
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission limitation[2]
Using this averaging time [3]
And determining compliance using this method [3]
Cadmium
0.0026 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters)
Performance test (Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide
17 parts per million dry volume
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 10 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis)
4.6 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters)
Performance test (Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis)
0.13 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters)
Performance test (Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).
Hydrogen chloride
29 parts per million dry volume
3-run average (For Method 26, collect a minimum volume of 60 liters per run. For Method 26A, collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter per run)
Performance test (Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8).
Lead
0.015 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters)
Performance test (Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Mercury
0.0048 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (For Method 29 an ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008) [4], collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters per run. For Method 30B, collect a minimum sample as specified in Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A)
Performance test (Method 29 or 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8) or ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008). [4]
Nitrogen oxides
53 parts per million dry volume
3-run average (for Method 7E, 1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4).
Particulate matter filterable
34 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter)
Performance test (Method 5 or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 or appendix A-8).
Sulfur dioxide
11 parts per million dry volume
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 6 or 6c at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4).
Fugitive ash
Visible emissions for no more than 5% of the hourly observation period
Three 1-hour observation periods
Visible emission test (Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).
[1]	The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state plan or February 7, 2018.
[2]	All emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit.
[3]	In lieu of performance testing, you may use a CEMS or, for mercury, an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system, to demonstrate initial and continuing compliance with an emissions limit, as long as you comply with the CEMS or integrated sorbent trap monitoring system requirements applicable to the specific pollutant in § 60.2710 and § 60.2730. As prescribed in § 60.2710(u), if you use a CEMS or integrated sorbent trap monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with an emissions limit, your averaging time is a 30-day rolling average of 1-hour arithmetic average emission concentrations.
[4]	Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17.

Table 7 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60 -- Model Rule -- Emission Limitations That Apply to Energy Recovery Units After May 20, 2011 [Date to be specified in state plan][1]
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission limitation[2]
Using this averaging time [3]
And determining compliance using this method [3]

                                  Liquid/Gas
                                    Solids

Cadmium
0.023 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
Biomass -- 0.0014 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
Coal -- 0.0017 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters)
Performance test (Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Carbon monoxide
35 parts per million dry volume
Biomass -- 260 parts per million dry volume
Coal -- 95 parts per million dry volume
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 10 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis)
2.9 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
Biomass -- 0.52 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
Coal -- 5.1 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry standard cubic meter)
Performance test (Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis)
0.32 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
Biomass -- 0.12 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
Coal -- 0.075 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry standard cubic meters)
Performance test (Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).
Hydrogen chloride
14 parts per million dry volume
Biomass -- 0.20 parts per million dry volume
Coal -- 58 parts per million dry volume
3-run average (for Method 26, collect a minimum of 120 liters; for Method 26A, collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter)
Performance test (Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8).
Lead
0.096 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
Biomass -- 0.014 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
Coal -- 0.057 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters)
Performance test (Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Mercury
0.0024 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
Biomass -- 0.0022 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
Coal -- 0.013 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (For Method 29 and ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008)[4], collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters per run. For Method 30B, collect a minimum sample as specified in Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A)
Performance test (Method 29 or 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8) or ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008).[4]
Nitrogen oxides
76 parts per million dry volume
Biomass -- 290 parts per million dry volume
Coal -- 460 parts per million dry volume
3-run average (for Method 7E, 1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4).
Particulate matter filterable
110 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
Biomass -- 11 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
Coal -- 130 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter)
Performance test (Method 5 or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 or appendix A-8) if the unit has an annual average heat input rate less than or equal to 250 MMBtu/hr; or PM CPMS (as specified in § 60.2710(x)) if the unit has an annual average heat input rate greater than 250 MMBtu/hr.
Sulfur dioxide
720 parts per million dry volume
Biomass -- 7.3 parts per million dry volume
Coal -- 850 parts per million dry volume
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 6 or 6c at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4).
Fugitive ash
Visible emissions for no more than 5 percent of the hourly observation period
Visible emissions for no more than 5 percent of the hourly observation period
Three 1-hour observation periods
Visible emission test (Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).
[1]	The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state plan or February 7, 2018.
[2]	All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit.
[3]	In lieu of performance testing, you may use a CEMS or, for mercury, an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system, to demonstrate initial and continuing compliance with an emissions limit, as long as you comply with the CEMS or integrated sorbent trap monitoring system requirements applicable to the specific pollutant in § 60.2710 and § 60.2730. As prescribed in § 60.2710(u), if you use a CEMS or integrated sorbent trap monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with an emissions limit, your averaging time is a 30-day rolling average of 1-hour arithmetic average emission concentrations.
[4]	Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17.

Table 8 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60 -- Model Rule -- Emission Limitations That Apply to Waste-Burning Kilns After May 20, 2011 [Date to be specified in state plan.][1]
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission limitation[2]
Using this averaging time [3]
And determining compliance using this method [3,][4]
Cadmium
0.0014 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters)
Performance test (Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8).
Carbon monoxide
110 (long kilns)/790 (preheater/precalciner) parts per million dry volume
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 10 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis)
1.3 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry standard cubic meters)
Performance test (Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis)
0.075 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 4 dry standard cubic meters)
Performance test (Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).
Hydrogen chloride
3.0 parts per million dry volume.
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter), or 30-day rolling average if HCl CEMS is being used
If a wet scrubber or dry scrubber is used, performance test (Method 321 at 40 CFR part 63, appendix A of this part).  If a wet scrubber or dry scrubber is not used, HCl CEMS as specified in § 60.2710(j).
Lead
0.014 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters)
Performance test (Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8).
Mercury
0.011 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter

Or

58 pounds/million tons of clinker
30-day rolling average
Mercury CEMS or integrated sorbent trap monitoring system (performance specification 12A or 12B, respectively, of appendix B and procedure 5 of appendix F of this part), as specified in § 60.2710(j).
Nitrogen oxides
630 parts per million dry volume
3-run average (for Method 7E, 1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4).
Particulate matter filterable
13.5 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
30-day rolling average
PM CPMS (as specified in § 60.2710(x))
Sulfur dioxide
600 parts per million dry volume
3-run average (for Method 6, collect a minimum of 20 liters; for Method 6C, 1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 6 or 6c at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4).
[1]	The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state plan or February 7, 2018.
[2]	All emission limitations are measured at 7 percent oxygen (except for CEMS and integrated sorbent trap monitoring system data during startup and shutdown), dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit.
[3]	In lieu of performance testing, you may use a CEMS or, for mercury, an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system, to demonstrate initial and continuing compliance with an emissions limit, as long as you comply with the CEMS or integrated sorbent trap monitoring system requirements applicable to the specific pollutant in § 60.2710 and § 60.2730. As prescribed in § 60.2710(u), if you use a CEMS or integrated sorbent trap monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with an emissions limit, your averaging time is a 30-day rolling average of 1-hour arithmetic average emission concentrations.
[4]	Alkali bypass and in-line coal mill stacks are subject to performance testing only, as specified in 60.2710(y)(3). They are not subject to the CEMS, integrated sorbent trap monitoring system, or CPMS requirements that otherwise may apply to the main kiln exhaust.

Table 9 to Subpart DDDD of Part 60 -- Model Rule -- Emission Limitations That Apply to Small, Remote Incinerators After May 20, 2011 [Date to be specified in state plan] [1]
For the air pollutant
You must meet this emission limitation[2]
Using this averaging time [3]
And determining compliance using this method [3]
Cadmium
0.95 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run)
Performance test (Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8).
Carbon monoxide
64 parts per million dry volume
3-run average (1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 10 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4).
Dioxins/furans (total mass basis)
4,400 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters per run)
Performance test (Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).
Dioxins/furans (toxic equivalency basis)
180 nanograms per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters)
Performance test (Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).
Fugitive ash
Visible emissions for no more than 5 percent of the hourly observation period
Three 1-hour observation periods
Visible emissions test (Method 22 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).
Hydrogen chloride
300 parts per million dry volume
3-run average (For Method 26, collect a minimum volume of 120 liters per run. For Method 26A, collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meter per run)
Performance test (Method 26 or 26A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8).
Lead
2.1 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters)
Performance test (Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8). Use ICPMS for the analytical finish.
Mercury
0.0053 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (For Method 29 and ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008),[3] collect a minimum volume of 2 dry standard cubic meters per run. For Method 30B, collect a minimum sample as specified in Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A)
Performance test (Method 29 or 30B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8) or ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008).[4]
Nitrogen oxides
190 parts per million dry volume
3-run average (for Method 7E, 1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 7 or 7E at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4).
Particulate matter
(filterable)
270 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
3-run average (collect a minimum volume of 1 dry standard cubic meters)
Performance test (Method 5 or 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 or appendix A-8).
Sulfur dioxide
150 parts per million dry volume
3-run average (for Method 6, collect a minimum of 20 liters per run; for Method 6C, 1 hour minimum sample time per run)
Performance test (Method 6 or 6c at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4).
[1]	The date specified in the state plan can be no later than 3 years after the effective date of approval of a revised state plan or February 7, 2018.
[2]	All emission limitations (except for opacity) are measured at 7 percent oxygen, dry basis at standard conditions. For dioxins/furans, you must meet either the total mass basis limit or the toxic equivalency basis limit.
[3]
	In lieu of performance testing, you may use a CEMS or, for mercury, an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system, to demonstrate initial and continuing compliance with an emissions limit, as long as you comply with the CEMS or integrated sorbent trap monitoring system requirements applicable to the specific pollutant in § 60.2710 and § 60.2730. As prescribed in § 60.2710(u), if you use a CEMS or integrated sorbent trap monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with an emissions limit, your averaging time is a 30-day rolling average of 1-hour arithmetic average emission concentrations.
[4]	Incorporated by reference, see § 60.17.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54949-54950]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21694]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2013-0075]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
received on July 8, 2013, the Medina Railroad Museum (MRRM) has
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR Part 223. FRA assigned the petition
Docket Number FRA-2013-0075.
    MRRM petitioned FRA to grant a waiver of compliance from the safety
glazing provisions of 49 CFR 223.15, Requirements for existing
passenger cars. MRRM seeks relief for a 1954 caf[eacute] lounge car,
Number RPCX 761, which was purchased from a private owner, Dr. Harry
Phills. MRRM intends to use RPCX 761 in excursion service on tracks
owned by Genesee Valley Transportation's Falls Road Railroad (FRR).
RPCX 761 will be operated at a maximum timetable track speed authorized
by MRRM, but not to exceed 30 mph. RPCX 761 has 15 side windows and 4
end windows located in the entry doors (2 panes per door). Each window
is two-pane glass with the inner pane

made of automotive-style, laminated Canadian safety glass. None of the
windows open; however, the two emergency exit windows on each end of
RPCX 761 are clearly marked and will have instructions for use of axes
and hammers to break out glazing under emergency conditions.
    There have been no accidents or incidents attributed to window
glazing failures in this equipment, which has been under the present
ownership since 2008. The owner does not have any evidence that there
have been any accidents/incidents involving window glazing resulting in
personal injury to any occupants of this equipment. There have been no
incidents of vandalism while this car has been in the museum's
ownership since 2008.
    When not in operation, this equipment is stored at 530 West Avenue,
Medina, NY, on FRR. This equipment will be moved up to 24 miles over
FRR trackage between Mileposts 18 and 42. FRR is a private shortline
railroad company consisting of 42 miles of track with just one
interchange point at Lockport, NY, where it interchanges with CSX
Transportation (CSX). This equipment will only operate with passengers
on this private railroad and will not interchange with CSX or Amtrak.
    FRR trackage is single track; there is only one overhead bridge,
without sidewalks, from which vandals could throw stones or other
objects at this equipment. The end windows of RPCX 761 are enclosed in
vestibules.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request. All communications concerning these proceedings should
identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by October 21, 2013 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as is practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby.
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-21694 Filed 9-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


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

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes and Nicotine Replacement Therapy (Lozenges and Gum). I stopped smoking using gum and lozenges and became addicted to them and they almost killed me. Finding e-cigarettes literally saved my life. I would like to tell you my story of how I got to be a 3 pack a day smoker to being addicted to lozenges and unable to digest any food and losing 80 lbs in 7 months, having to live on Ensure, to finally discovering e-cigarettes and getting my life back. I've gained 20 lbs. and can eat food again!, As well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Thank you.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65647-65649]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20669]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0355; FRL-11176-01-R9]

Air Quality Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California;
Amador Air District; New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a permitting rule submitted as a revision to the Amador Air
District (AAD or ``District'') portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the District's New
Source Review (NSR) permitting program for new and modified sources of
air pollution under part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
``Act''). This action will update the District's applicable SIP with a
rule revised to address deficiencies identified in a previous limited
disapproval action. This action also proposes to revise regulatory text
to clarify that the District is not subject to the Federal
Implementation Plan related to protection of visibility. We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 25, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2023-0355 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions
(audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The
written comment is considered the official comment and should include a
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file-sharing systems).
For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karima Zulfo, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
when it was revised by the District and submitted to the EPA for SIP
approval by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). This rule
constitutes part of the District's program for preconstruction review
and permitting of new or modified stationary sources under its
jurisdiction. The rule revisions that are the subject of this action
represent an update to the AAD's preconstruction review and permitting
program and are intended to satisfy the requirements under part D of
Title I of the Act (``Nonattainment NSR'' or ``NNSR'') including the
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-165, and the relevant
regulatory requirements at 40 CFR 51.307, as well as the requirements
of sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act.

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Rule No.                             Rule title                Revision date     Submitted date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
400..................................  Requirements for New and Modified           1/17/2023            3/3/2023
                                        Major Sources in Nonattainment
                                        Areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's March 3, 2023 SIP submittal package meets the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51, which must be met before formal EPA review.
The EPA's signed notice of proposed rulemaking for our proposed action
on this submittal will serve as the EPA's formal completeness
determination for this submittal.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    The previously SIP-approved version of AAD Rule 400 is identified
in Table 2.

                                           Table 2--SIP Approved Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               SIP approval    Federal Register
               Rule No.                             Rule title                     date            citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
400..................................  Requirements for New and Modified           1/12/2022          87 FR 1683
                                        Major Sources in Nonattainment Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our action approving this previous version of Rule 400 into the SIP
was a limited approval and limited disapproval. If the EPA finalizes
the action proposed herein, this rule will be replaced in the SIP by
the submitted rule listed in Table 1. Additionally, as described below,
the EPA's final approval of Rule 400 will resolve all deficiencies
forming the basis for our previous limited disapproval.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    The submitted rule is intended to resolve the NSR program
deficiencies we identified in our January 12, 2022 final action (``2022
NSR Action''),\1\ which included limited disapproval of a prior version
of Rule 400. In addition, the District made minor revisions to correct
typographical errors, provide clarifying edits, and make other similar
minor editorial revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 87 FR 1683.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    The EPA has evaluated the submitted rule to determine whether it
addresses the deficiencies identified in our 2022 NSR Action. We have
also evaluated various additional minor revisions to Rule 400 that were
made for clarity and accuracy. We have reviewed the rule as revised for
consistency with the Act's NNSR requirements, including the
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-165, and the relevant
regulatory requirements at 40 CFR 51.307, as well as the requirements
in sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act for SIP revisions.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We find that the revisions to Rule 400 correct all deficiencies
identified in the 2022 NSR Action, and we find that the other minor
revisions to the rule are approvable. The technical support document
(TSD) for this proposed rulemaking contains a more detailed analysis
and is included in the docket for this action.
    The submitted rule complies with the substantive and procedural
requirements of CAA section 110(l). With respect to the procedural
requirements, based on our review of the public process documentation
included with the submitted rule, we find that the District has
provided sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for
comment and public hearings prior to the submittal of this SIP revision
and has satisfied these procedural requirements under CAA section
110(l).
    With respect to the substantive requirements of CAA section 110(l),
we have determined that our approval of the submitted rule would not
interfere with the area's ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS or
with any other applicable requirements of the CAA. Similarly, we find
that the submitted rule is approvable under section 193 of the Act
because it does not modify any control requirement in effect before
November 15, 1990, without ensuring equivalent or greater emission
reductions. The submitted rule is otherwise consistent with the
criteria for the EPA's approval of regulations submitted for inclusion
in the SIP.
    For the reasons stated above and explained further in our TSD, we
find that submitted Rule 400 satisfies the applicable requirements
under part D of Title I of the Act and other applicable requirements of
the Act. This submittal also corrects the deficiencies described in our
2022 NSR Action.

C. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is proposing
approval of Rule 400 into the California SIP. We are proposing this
action based on our determination that the submitted rule satisfies the
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions governing the regulation
of stationary sources under part D of title I of the Act and
accompanying regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-165, as well as 40 CFR 51.
307. In support of our proposed action, we have concluded that our
approval would comply with sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act because
the amended rule will not interfere with the continued attainment of
the NAAQS in Amador County and does not relax any requirements in the
SIP.
    This action would also revise the regulatory provisions at 40 CFR
52.281(d) concerning the applicability of the visibility Federal
implementation plan (FIP) at 40 CFR 52.28 as it pertains to California,
to provide that this FIP does not apply to sources subject to review
under the District's SIP-approved NNSR program. As described in more
detail in the TSD for this action, the EPA has previously found
Subsections 3.6 and 5.1 of Rule 400 acceptable to meet the visibility
provisions for sources subject to the NNSR program at 40 CFR 51.307.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See TSD for 2018 NSR Action, Section 6.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until
October 25, 2023. If we finalize this action as proposed, our action
will resolve the limited disapproval of Rule 400, incorporate the
submitted rule into the SIP and our action would be codified through
revisions to 40 CFR 52.220, ``Identification of plan--in part.'' In
conjunction with our final approval into the SIP of the submitted
version of Rule 400, we would remove from the SIP the previous version
of the rule, identified in Table 2 above.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the rule identified and discussed in section
I.A. of this preamble that includes revisions concerning the District's
NSR permitting program for new and modified sources of air pollution
under part D of Title I of the CAA. The EPA has made and will continue
to make, these materials available through https://www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for
more information).

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, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state program;

     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA
did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action.
Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is
expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the
affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this
action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the
stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people
of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, and Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 18, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023-20669 Filed 9-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57662]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23870]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0003; FRL-9465-5]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 29, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a Notice of Intent to Delete and a Direct Notice of Deletion
for the Palmer Barge Line (PBL) Superfund Site from the National
Priorities List. The EPA is withdrawing the Final Direct Notice of
Deletion because the deletion notices were published in the Federal
Register without Headquarter's concurrence as required under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Delegation of Authority.

DATES: Effective Date: This withdrawal of the direct final action (76
FR 45432) is effective as of September 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES:
    Information Repositories: Comprehensive information on the PBL
Superfund Site, as well as the comments that we received during the
comment period, are available in Docket EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0003,
accessed through the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the docket 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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
    1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700; Dallas, Texas 75202-2733; Hours of operation: Monday
thru Friday, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.. Contact: Rafael A.
Casanova<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Port Arthur Public Library; 4615 9th Avenue; Port Arthur, Texas
77642-5799; Hours of operation: Monday thru Thursday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.;
Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.; Saturday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Sunday, 2
p.m. to 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rafael A. Casanova, Remedial Project
Manager; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Superfund
Division (6SF-RA); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200; Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: September 6, 2011.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    Accordingly, the amendment to Table 1 of Appendix B to CFR part 300
to remove the entry ``Palmer Barge Line Superfund Site,'' ``Port
Arthur, Texas,'' is withdrawn as of September 16, 2011.

[FR Doc. 2011-23870 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59450-59451]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0164]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 19 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective September 27, 2012. The exemptions
expire on September 27, 2014.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/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.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's 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, or other
entity). 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), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On August 2, 2012, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 19 individuals and requested
comments from the public (77 FR 46149). The public comment period
closed on September 4, 2012, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 19 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

    These 19 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 22 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the August 2, 2012, Federal Register
notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA did not receive any comments in this proceeding.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 19 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Kevin M. Brown (CO), Alvin J. Chandler (VA), Vernon V.
Cromartie (NJ), Eric C. Fuller (AZ), Kevin M. Klevecz (VA), Matthew R.
Lanciault (NH), Steven L. Leslie (MI), Anthony J. Lesmeister (ND),
Lawrence C. Mace (PA), Del A. Meath (MN), David D. Nelson (ND), Benny
D. Puck (IA), Bob F. Rice (WA), Thomas P. Ropiak (WI), Larry L. Smith
(IN), William G. Smith (AR), Larry D. Way (OH), Paul E. Williams, Jr.
(GA), and Quintin E. Williams (NC) from the ITDM requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed under ``Conditions and
Requirements'' above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply
with the terms and conditions of the 1/exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: September 19, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-23759 Filed 9-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P