[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15161-15166]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05403]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0165; FRL-9635-01-R3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans; Pennsylvania;
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Determinations for Case-
by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and/or 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve multiple state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These revisions were submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to
establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT)
for eight major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and/or
nitrogen oxides (NOX) pursuant to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania's conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this
rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to approve source-specific RACT
determinations (case-by-case or alternative NOX emission
limits) for sources at eight major NOX and VOC emitting
facilities submitted by PADEP. These RACT evaluations were submitted to
meet RACT requirements for the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This action is being taken under
the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2022-0165 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure 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 discussion of all points you wish to make. 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
system). 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Riley Burger, Permits Branch
(3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Burger can also be reached
via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 7, 2020, PADEP submitted revisions to
its SIP to address source-specific NOX and/or VOC RACT for
sources at numerous major NOX and VOC emitting facilities
located in the Commonwealth. Later supplemental submissions were
provided on February 9, 2021, July 20, 2021, and January 28, 2022.
These SIP revisions are intended to address the NOX and/or
VOC RACT requirements under sections 182 and 184 of the CAA for the
1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ Table 1 of this document lists
the SIP submittal date(s) and the eight facilities included in PADEP's
submittals that EPA is proposing approval of in this rulemaking action.
EPA views each facility as a separable SIP revision and may take
separate final action on one or more facilities. One facility is
located in Allegheny County and was submitted by PADEP on behalf of the
Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The subject RACT evaluation for ATI Flat Rolled Products
Holdings, LLC was submitted to meet the RACT requirements for only
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because a RACT evaluation had previously
been approved under the 1997 8-hour standard for that facility. See
78 FR 34584 (June 10, 2013). The RACT evaluations submitted by PADEP
for the other seven major NOX and VOC emitting facilities
in this rulemaking are to meet the requirements for both the 1997
and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For additional background information on Pennsylvania's
``presumptive'' RACT II SIP see 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019) and on
Pennsylvania's source-specific (case-by-case or alternative
NOX emission limits) RACT determinations see the appropriate
technical support document (TSD) which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0165.

    Table 1--PADEP SIP Submittals for Major NOX and/or VOC Sources in
 Pennsylvania Subject to Source-Specific Ract Under the 1997 and/or 2008
                          8-Hour Ozone Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SIP submittal date                 Major source (county)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/7/2020.....................  ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Coatesville
                                (Chester).
5/7/2020.....................  ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Monessen Coke
                                Plant (Westmoreland).
5/7/2020 and 1/28/2022.......  Boyertown Foundry Company (Berks).
5/7/2020.....................  Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Company
                                Mehoopany (Wyoming).
5/7/2020 and 1/28/2022.......  Texas Eastern Transmission LP Lilly
                                Station (Cambria).
5/7/2020, 2/9/2021, and 7/20/  ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings, LLC
 2021.                          (Allegheny).
2/9/2021.....................  Grove US LLC Shady Grove Plant
                                (Franklin).
2/9/2021.....................  INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia
                                (Butler).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is
created by chemical reactions between NOX and VOC in the
presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities, electric
utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical
solvents are some of the major sources of NOX and VOC.
Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems, particularly
for children, the elderly, and people of all ages who have lung
diseases such as asthma. Ground level ozone can also have harmful
effects on sensitive vegetation and ecosystems.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a standard for ground level ozone
based on 8-hour average concentrations. 62 FR 38856. The 8-hour
averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the
level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to
0.08 ppm. EPA has designated two moderate nonattainment areas in
Pennsylvania under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, namely Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE (the Philadelphia Area) and
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley (the Pittsburgh Area). See 40 CFR 81.339.
    On March 12, 2008, EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone standards, by
revising its level to 0.075 ppm averaged over an 8-hour period (2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS). On May 21, 2012, EPA designated five marginal
nonattainment areas in Pennsylvania for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS:
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Lancaster, Reading, the Philadelphia Area,
and the Pittsburgh Area. 77 FR 30088; see also 40 CFR 81.339.
    On March 6, 2015, EPA announced its revocation of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for all purposes and for all areas in the country,
effective on April 6, 2015. 80 FR 12264. EPA has determined that
certain nonattainment planning requirements continue to be in effect
under the revoked standard for nonattainment areas under the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, including RACT.

B. RACT Requirements for Ozone

    The CAA regulates emissions of NOX and VOC to prevent
photochemical reactions that result in ozone formation. RACT is an
important strategy for reducing NOX and VOC emissions from
major stationary sources within areas not meeting the ozone NAAQS.
    Areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS are subject to
the general nonattainment planning requirements of CAA section 172.
Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas
must include reasonably available control measures (RACM) for
demonstrating attainment of all NAAQS, including emissions reductions
from existing sources through the adoption of RACT. Further, section
182(b)(2) of the CAA sets forth additional RACT requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or higher. Section 182(b)(2)
of the CAA sets forth requirements regarding RACT for the ozone NAAQS
for VOC sources. Section 182(f) subjects major stationary sources of
NOX to the same RACT requirements applicable to major
stationary sources of VOC.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``major source'' is defined based on the source's
potential to emit (PTE) of NOX or VOC, and the applicable
thresholds for RACT differs based on the classification of the
nonattainment area in which the source is located. See sections
182(c)-(f) and 302 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA applies the RACT requirements in
section 182(b)(2) to nonattainment areas classified as marginal and to
attainment areas located within ozone transport regions established
pursuant to section 184 of the CAA. Section 184(a) of the CAA
established by law the current Ozone Transport Region (OTR) comprised
of 12 eastern states, including Pennsylvania. This requirement is
referred to as OTR RACT. As noted previously, a ``major source'' is
defined based on the source's potential to emit (PTE) of
NOX, VOC, or both pollutants, and the applicable thresholds
differ based on the classification of the nonattainment area in which
the source is located. See sections 182(c)-(f) and 302 of the CAA.
    Since the 1970's, EPA has consistently defined ``RACT'' as the
lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by
the application of the control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger Strelow,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management, to Regional
Administrators, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas,'' and 44 FR 53762 (September
17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has provided more substantive RACT requirements through
implementation rules for each ozone NAAQS as well as through guidance.
In 2004 and 2005, EPA promulgated an implementation rule for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in two phases (``Phase 1 of the 1997 Ozone
Implementation Rule'' and ``Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone Implementation
Rule''). 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR 71612 (November 29,
2005), respectively. Particularly, the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation
Rule addressed RACT statutory requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 70 FR 71652 (November 29, 2005).
    On March 6, 2015, EPA issued its final rule for implementing the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (``the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule''). 80
FR 12264. At the same time, EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
effective on April 6, 2015.\4\ The 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule
provided comprehensive requirements to transition from the revoked 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as codified in 40
CFR part 51, subpart AA, following revocation. Consistent with previous
policy, EPA determined that areas designated nonattainment for both the
1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS at the time of revocation, must retain
implementation of certain nonattainment area requirements (i.e., anti-
backsliding requirements) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as specified
under section 182 of the CAA, including RACT. See 40 CFR 51.1100(o). An
area remains subject to the anti-backsliding requirements for a revoked
NAAQS until EPA approves a redesignation to attainment for the area for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. There are no effects on applicable
requirements for areas within the OTR, as a result of the revocation of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus, Pennsylvania, as a state within the
OTR, remains subject to RACT requirements for both the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. Court) issued an opinion
on the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule. South Coast Air Quality
Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The D.C. Cir.
Court found certain parts reasonable and denied the petition for
appeal on those. In particular, the D.C. Cir. Court upheld the use
of NOX averaging to meet RACT requirements for 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. However, the Court also found certain other
provisions unreasonable. The D.C. Cir. Court vacated the provisions
it found unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addressing RACT, the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule is
consistent with existing policy and Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone
Implementation Rule. In the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA
requires RACT measures to be implemented by January 1, 2017 for areas
classified as moderate nonattainment or above and all areas of the OTR.
EPA also provided in the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule that RACT
SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where
appropriate that existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative
declarations stating that there are no sources in the nonattainment
area covered by a

specific control technique guidelines (CTG) source category. In the
preamble to the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA clarified that
states must provide notice and opportunity for public comment on their
RACT SIP submissions, even when submitting a certification that the
existing provisions remain RACT or a negative declaration. States must
submit appropriate supporting information for their RACT submissions,
in accordance with the Phase 2 of the 1997 Ozone Implementation Rule.
Adequate documentation must support that states have considered control
technology that is economically and technologically feasible in
determining RACT, based on information that is current as of the time
of development of the RACT SIP.
    In addition, in the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule, EPA clarified
that states can use weighted average NOX emissions rates
from sources in the nonattainment area for meeting the major
NOX RACT requirement under the CAA, as consistent with
existing policy.\5\ EPA also recognized that states may conclude in
some cases that sources already addressed by RACT determinations for
the 1979 1-hour and/or 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS may not need to
implement additional controls to meet the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS RACT
requirement. See 80 FR 12278 and 12279 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA's NOX RACT guidance ``Nitrogen Oxides
Supplement to the General Preamble'' (57 FR 55620; November 25,
1992) encouraged states to develop RACT programs that are based on
``area wide average emission rates.'' Additional guidance on area-
wide RACT provisions is provided by EPA's January 2001 economic
incentive program guidance titled ``Improving Air Quality with
Economic Incentive Programs,'' available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/eipfin.pdf. In addition, as
mentioned previously, the D.C. Cir. Court upheld the use of
NOX averaging to meet RACT requirements for 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 882 F.3d
1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Applicability of RACT Requirements in Pennsylvania

    As indicated earlier, RACT requirements apply to any ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or higher (serious, severe
or extreme) under CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f). Pennsylvania has
outstanding ozone RACT requirements for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is part of the OTR
established under section 184 of the CAA and thus is subject statewide
to the RACT requirements of CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f), pursuant
to section 184(b).
    At the time of revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (effective
April 6, 2015), only two moderate nonattainment areas remained in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for this standard, the Philadelphia and
the Pittsburgh Areas. As required under EPA's anti-backsliding
provisions, these two moderate nonattainment areas continue to be
subject to RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Given its location
in the OTR, the remainder of the Commonwealth is also treated as
moderate nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for any
planning requirements under the revoked standard, including RACT. The
OTR RACT requirement is also in effect under the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS throughout the Commonwealth, since EPA did not designate any
nonattainment areas above marginal for this standard in Pennsylvania.
Thus, in practice, the same RACT requirements continue to be applicable
in Pennsylvania for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. RACT
must be evaluated and satisfied as separate requirements under each
applicable standard.
    RACT applies to major sources of NOX and VOC under each
ozone NAAQS or any VOC sources subject to CTG RACT. Which
NOX and VOC sources in Pennsylvania are considered ``major''
and are therefore subject to RACT is dependent on the location of each
source within the Commonwealth. Sources located in nonattainment areas
would be subject to the ``major source'' definitions established under
the CAA based on the area's current classification(s). In the case of
Pennsylvania, sources located outside of moderate or above ozone
nonattainment areas, as part of the OTR, shall be treated as if these
areas were moderate.
    In Pennsylvania, the SIP program is implemented primarily by the
PADEP, but also by local air agencies in Philadelphia County (the City
of Philadelphia's Air Management Services [AMS]) and Allegheny County,
(the Allegheny County Health Department [ACHD]). These agencies have
implemented numerous RACT regulations and source-specific measures in
Pennsylvania to meet the applicable ozone RACT requirements.
Historically, statewide RACT controls have been promulgated by PADEP in
Pennsylvania Code Title 25--Environmental Resources, Part I--Department
of Environmental Protection, Subpart C--Protection of Natural
Resources, Article III--Air Resources, (25 Pa. Code) Chapter 129. AMS
and ACHD have incorporated by reference Pennsylvania regulations but
have also promulgated regulations adopting RACT controls for their own
jurisdictions. In addition, AMS and ACHD have submitted, through PADEP,
separate source-specific RACT determinations as SIP revisions for
sources within their respective jurisdictions, which have been approved
by EPA. See 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1).
    States were required to make RACT SIP submissions for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS by September 15, 2006. PADEP submitted a SIP revision
on September 25, 2006, certifying that a number of previously approved
VOC RACT rules continued to satisfy RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the remainder of Pennsylvania.\6\ PADEP has met its
obligations under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for its CTG and non-CTG
VOC sources. See 82 FR 31464 (July 7, 2017). RACT control measures
addressing all applicable CAA RACT requirements under the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS have been implemented and fully approved in the
jurisdictions of ACHD and AMS. See 78 FR 34584 (June 10, 2013) and 81
FR 69687 (October 7, 2016), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The September 15, 2006 SIP submittal initially included
Pennsylvania's certification of NOX RACT regulations;
however, NOX RACT portions were withdrawn by PADEP on
June 27, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states were required to submit
RACT SIP revisions by July 20, 2014. On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a
SIP revision addressing RACT for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in Pennsylvania. Specifically, the May 16, 2016 SIP submittal
intended to satisfy sections 182(b)(2)(C), 182(f), and 184 of the CAA
for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Pennsylvania's major
NOX and VOC non-CTG sources, except ethylene production
plants, surface active agents manufacturing, and mobile equipment
repair and refinishing.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA's conditional approval of PADEP's May 16, 2016 SIP
revision covered relevant sources located in both Philadelphia and
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. EPA's Conditional Approval for Pennsylvania's RACT Requirements
Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT for
both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania. PADEP's May
16, 2016 SIP revision intended to address certain outstanding VOC CTG
RACT and major NOX RACT requirements under the CAA for both
standards. The SIP revision requested approval of Pennsylvania's 25 Pa.
Code 129.96-100, Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of
NOX

and VOCs (the ``presumptive'' RACT II rule). Prior to the adoption of
the RACT II rule, Pennsylvania relied on the NOX and VOC
control measures in 25 Pa. Code 129.92-95, Stationary Sources of NOX
and VOCs, (the RACT I rule) to meet RACT for major sources of VOC and
NOX. The requirements of the RACT I rule remain in effect
and continue to be implemented as RACT.\8\ On September 26, 2017, PADEP
submitted a supplemental SIP revision which committed to address
various deficiencies identified by EPA in PADEP's May 16, 2016
``presumptive'' RACT II rule SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ These requirements were initially approved as RACT for
Pennsylvania under the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The RACT I Rule was
approved by EPA into the SIP on March 23, 1998. 63 FR 13789.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based
on PADEP's September 26, 2017 commitment letter.\9\ See 84 FR 20274. In
EPA's final conditional approval, EPA noted that PADEP would be
required to submit, for EPA's approval, SIP revisions to address any
facility-wide or system-wide NOX emissions averaging plan
approved under 25 Pa. Code 129.98 and any case-by-case RACT
determinations under 25 Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP committed to submitting
these additional SIP revisions within 12 months of EPA's final
conditional approval, specifically May 9, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ On August 27, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
issued a decision vacating EPA's approval of three provisions of
Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT II rule applicable to certain coal-
fired power plants. Sierra Club v. EPA, 972 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2020).
None of the sources in this proposed rulemaking are subject to the
three presumptive RACT II provisions at issue in that Sierra Club
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, as authorized in CAA section 110(k)(3) and (k)(4),
Pennsylvania was required to submit the following as source-specific
SIP revisions, by May 9, 2020, for EPA's approval as a condition of
approval of 25 Pa. Code 128 and 129 in the May 16, 2016 SIP revision:
(1) All facility-wide or system-wide NOX emissions averaging
plans approved by PADEP under 25 Pa. Code 129.98 including, but not
limited to, any terms and conditions that ensure the enforceability of
the averaging plan as a practical matter (i.e., any monitoring,
reporting, recordkeeping, or testing requirements); and (2) all source-
specific RACT determinations approved by PADEP under 25 Pa. Code
129.99, including any alternative compliance schedules approved under
25 Pa. Code 129.97(k) and 129.99(i); the case-by-case RACT
determinations submitted to EPA for approval into the SIP should
include any terms and conditions that ensure the enforceability of the
case-by-case or source-specific RACT emission limitation as a practical
matter (i.e., any monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, or testing
requirements). See 84 FR 20274 (May 9, 2019). Through multiple
submissions between 2017 and 2020, PADEP has submitted to EPA for
approval various SIP submissions to implement its RACT II case-by-case
determinations and averaging plans. PADEP has subsequently supplemented
several of the initial SIP submissions. This proposed rulemaking is
based on EPA's review of several of these SIP revisions.

II. Summary of SIP Revisions

    In order to satisfy a requirement from EPA's May 9, 2019
conditional approval, PADEP has submitted to EPA, SIP revisions
addressing source-specific RACT requirements for major sources in
Pennsylvania subject to 25 Pa. Code 129.98 or 129.99. Among the
submitted SIP revisions were case-by-case RACT determinations for
sources in Allegheny County, which PADEP submitted on behalf of ACHD.
As noted in Table 1 of this document PADEP submitted to EPA SIP
revisions pertaining to source-specific NOX and/or VOC RACT
determinations for sources located at numerous major NOX and
VOC emitting facilities located in the Commonwealth as conducted by
PADEP or ACHD. PADEP provided documentation in its SIP revisions to
support those source-specific RACT determinations for affected emission
units at each major NOX and VOC emitting facilities subject
to 25 Pa. Code 129.98 or 129.99.
    In the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions, PADEP and ACHD included a
case-by-case RACT determination for the existing emissions units at
each of these major sources of NOX and/or VOC that required
a source-specific RACT determination pursuant to 25 Pa. Code 129.99. In
PADEP's and ACHD's RACT determinations an evaluation was completed to
determine if previously SIP-approved, case-by-case RACT requirements
(herein referred to as RACT I) were more stringent and required to be
retained in the sources Title V air quality permit and subsequently,
the Federally-approved SIP, or if the new case-by-case RACT
requirements are more stringent and supersede the previous Federally-
approved provisions.
    EPA, in this action, is taking action on sources at eight major
NOX and/or VOC emitting facilities in Pennsylvania, subject
to Pennsylvania's source-specific RACT requirements, as summarized in
Table 2 in this document.

  Table 2--Eight Major NOX and/or VOC Sources in Pennsylvania Subject to Source-Specific RACT II Under the 1997
                                         and/or 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          1-Hour ozone RACT      Major source pollutant       RACT II permit
        Major source (county)              source? (RACT I)         (NOX and/or VOC)         (effective date)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Coatesville    Yes....................  NOX and VOC............  15-00010
 (Chester).                                                                              (3/18/2020).
ArcelorMittal Plate LLC Monessen Coke  Yes....................  NOX and VOC............  65-00853
 Plant (Westmoreland).                                                                   (4/22/2020).
Boyertown Foundry Company (Berks)....  Yes....................  VOC....................  06-05063
                                                                                (8/1/2020).
Proctor & Gamble Paper Products        Yes....................  NOX and VOC............  66-00001 (7/12/2021).
 Company Mehoopany (Wyoming).
Texas Eastern Transmission LP Lilly    Yes....................  NOX and VOC............  11-00258 (12/10/2021).
 Station (Cambria).
ATI Flat Rolled Products Holdings,     Yes....................  NOX and VOC............  0059-I009 (12/3/2020),
 LLC (Allegheny).                                                                         0059-I009d (4/21/2021)
Grove US LLC Shady Grove Plant         Yes....................  VOC....................  28-05004 (1/1/2021).
 (Franklin).
INDSPEC Chemical Corporation Petrolia  Yes....................  NOX and VOC............  10-00021 (12/17/2020).
 (Butler).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The case-by-case RACT determinations conducted by PADEP and ACHD
consist of an evaluation of all reasonably available controls at the
time of evaluation for each affected emissions unit, resulting in a
determination of what specific emission limit or control measures
satisfy RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of new or
additional controls or the revisions to existing controls as RACT were
specified as requirements in new or revised Federally enforceable
permits (hereafter RACT II permits) issued by PADEP or ACHD to the
source. Similarly, the adoption of an alternative NOX
emission limit through a NOX emission averaging plan was
specified in a RACT II permit. The RACT II permits, which revise or
adopt additional source-specific controls, have been submitted as part
of the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions for EPA's approval in the
Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1). The RACT II permits
submitted by PADEP, and PADEP on behalf of ACHD, are listed in the last
column of Table 2 of this document, along with the permit effective
date, and are part of the docket for this rulemaking, which is
available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2022-0165.\10\ EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference in the
Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II permits, source-specific RACT
determinations under the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
certain sources at major NOX and VOC emitting
facilities.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The RACT II permits included in the docket for this
rulemaking are redacted versions of the facility's Federally
enforceable permits. They reflect the specific RACT requirements
being approved into the Pennsylvania SIP via this rulemaking.
    \11\ While the prior SIP-approved RACT I permit will remain part
of the SIP, this RACT II rule will incorporate by reference the RACT
II requirements through the RACT II permit and clarify the ongoing
applicability of specific conditions in the RACT I permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Evaluation of SIP Revisions

    After thorough review and evaluation of the information provided by
PADEP, and PADEP on behalf of ACHD, for sources at eight major
NOX and/or VOC emitting facilities in Pennsylvania included
in its SIP revision submittal, EPA finds that PADEP's case-by-case RACT
determinations and conclusions provided are reasonable and
appropriately considered technically and economically feasible
controls, while setting lowest achievable limits. EPA finds that the
proposed source-specific RACT controls for the sources subject to this
rulemaking action adequately meet the CAA RACT requirements for the
1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the subject sources of
NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, as they are not covered by
or cannot meet Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT regulation.
    EPA also finds that all the proposed revisions to previously SIP
approved RACT requirements, under the 1979 1-hour ozone standard (RACT
I), as discussed in PADEP's SIP revisions, will result in equivalent or
additional reductions of NOX and/or VOC emissions and should
not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of
the NAAQS, reasonable further progress or other applicable CAA
requirement under section 110(l) of the CAA.
    EPA's complete analysis of PADEP's source-specific RACT SIP
revisions is included in the TSD available in the docket for this
rulemaking action and available online at https://www.regulations.gov,
Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2022-0165.

IV. Proposed Action

    Based on EPA's review, EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania
SIP revisions for source-specific RACT determinations for individual
sources at eight major NOX and/or VOC emitting facilities
listed in Table 2 of this document and incorporate by reference in the
Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II permits, source-specific RACT
determinations under the 1997 and/or 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for those
sources. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action. As EPA views each facility as a separable SIP revision, should
EPA receive comment on one facility but not others, EPA may take
separate, final action on the remaining facilities.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, 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, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference source-specific RACT determinations via the RACT II permits
as described in Sections II and III--Summary of SIP Revisions and EPA's
Evaluation of SIP Revisions in this document. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

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 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 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     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 proposed rulemaking, addressing the
NOX and VOC RACT source-specific requirements for individual
sources at eight facilities in Pennsylvania for the 1997 and/or 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 8, 2022.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2022-05403 Filed 3-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22365-22367]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0036]

Guidelines for the Safe Deployment and Operation of Automated
Vehicle Safety Technologies

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Announcement of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is announcing a second public meeting to seek input on
planned guidelines for the safe deployment and operation of automated
vehicles. NHTSA held its first public meeting on this topic on April 8,
2016, in Washington, DC. The intent of the operational guidelines is to
encourage innovative and safe deployment of automated vehicle
technologies. At this meeting, NHTSA is seeking public input on those
aspects of automated vehicle (AV) systems that would benefit from
operational guidelines. For example, of high importance to the Agency
is information on the roadway scenarios and operational environments
highly automated vehicles will need to address and the associated
design and evaluation processes and methods needed to ensure that AV
systems can detect and appropriately react to these scenarios such that
a high level of safety is assured when these systems are deployed on US
roadways.
    Also of interest to the Agency is input on aspects of automated
vehicle technology that may not be suitable or ready for guidelines.
For these areas, information would be useful on alternative approaches
to assure safety.

DATES: NHTSA will hold the public meeting on April 27, 2016, in
Stanford, CA. The meeting will start at 9:00 a.m. and continue until
4:00 p.m., local time. Check-in will begin at 8 a.m.
    Location: The meeting will be held at the CARS Facility at Stanford
University, 473 Oak Rd, Stanford, CA 94305. This facility is accessible
to individuals with disabilities. The meeting will also be webcast
live, and a link to the actual webcast will be available through http://www.nhtsa.gov/Research/Crash+Avoidance/Automated+Vehicles.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about the public
meeting, please contact us at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration is necessary for all attendees. Attendees should
register at

http://goo.gl/forms/T67E0B20Ie by April 22, 2016. Please provide name
and affiliation, indicate if you wish to offer technical remarks, and
please indicate whether you require accommodations such as a sign
language interpreter. Space is limited, so advanced registration is
highly encouraged.
    Although attendees will be given the opportunity to offer technical
remarks, there will not be time for attendees to make audio-visual
presentations during the meeting. Note: We may not be able to
accommodate all attendees who wish to make oral remarks. Should it be
necessary to cancel the meeting due to inclement weather or other
emergency, NHTSA will take available measures to notify registered
participants.
    NHTSA will conduct the public meeting informally, and technical
rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written
transcript of the meeting and keep the official record open for 30 days
after the meeting to allow submission of supplemental information. You
may make arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the
court reporter, and the transcript will also be posted in the docket
when it becomes available.
    Written Comments: Written statements and supporting information
submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same
weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the
public meeting. Please submit all written comments no later than May 9,
2016, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 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 or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. 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 discussion below.
    Docket: For access to the docket go to http://www.regulations.gov
at any time or to 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-
9826.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or you may visit
http://www.regulations.gov/privacy.html.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at
the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition,
you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address
given above. When you send a comment containing information claimed to
be confidential business information, you should submit a cover letter
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    DOT recently announced a series of actions to remove potential
roadblocks to the integration of innovative automotive technology. As
part of this effort, the Department announced several milestones for
2016, including development of guidance on the safe deployment and
operation of automated vehicles.

Draft Agenda (In Local Time)

08:00-09:00--Arrival/Check-In
09:00-12:00--Morning Public Meeting Session
12:00-13:00--Lunch Break
13:00-16:00--Afternoon Public Meeting Session
16:00--Adjourn

Public Meeting Topics

    NHTSA is seeking input on the following topics during the morning
and afternoon sessions of the meeting.
    1. Evaluation and testing of scenarios the AV system should detect
and correctly operate in: Within the AV system's operating envelope,
consider how to identify the scenarios that could be encountered by the
AV system (e.g., behavioral competencies/normal driving, pre-crash
scenarios, etc.) and what design and evaluation (testing) processes and
methods are needed to ensure that the vehicle can detect and
appropriately react to these scenarios. Consider whether third party
testing is appropriate for validating test results.
    2. Detection and communication of operational boundaries: If there
are limitations on where AV technology will operate--what methods
should the AV technology use to sense when it is reaching the
operational domain limit and how should that be communicated to the
driver?
    3. Environmental operation and sensing: Consider what environmental
conditions AV systems will likely operate in. For environmental
conditions in which AV systems are not designed to operate, discuss
methods used to detect these conditions.
    4. Driver transitioning to/from AV operating mode: For AV systems
that rely on transferring vehicle operation back to the driver, discuss
approaches to (a) ensuring safe transitioning back to a fully capable
non-impaired driver (e.g., geo-fencing, adverse weather) and (b) how
non-optimal driver behavior (e.g., decision errors, erratic behavior,
driver impairment) will be addressed by the AV system.
    5. AV for persons with disabilities: Consider the unique needs of
people with different types of disabilities in the design, development,
and policy setting for self-driving cars and related automation.
    6. Data: Consider data recording capabilities of system(s)
necessary to monitor the correct operation of the AV system, and what
are appropriate triggers (crash, near crash, etc.) to determine system
operational status or possible malfunction of the system. Also consider
how recorded data could be accessed and by whom. During the testing
phase, consider what data should be made public for further analysis
and understanding.
    7. Crash avoidance capability: Consider the capabilities of AV
systems with respect to detecting roadway hazards (other vehicles,
pedestrians, animals, etc.) such that common crash scenarios involving
these hazards (control loss, crossing paths head-on, etc.) can be
detected and either avoided or mitigated.
    8. Electronics systems safety: Consider methods and potential
documentation that could be produced with respect to functional safety
and cybersecurity.
    9. Non-passenger AVs: Consider differences between AVs designed for
delivery of goods and products that are

not intended to have a human operator or potentially even human
passengers.
    10. Aspects of AV technology that may not be suitable or ready for
guidelines: For these areas, information would be useful on alternative
approaches to assure safety.
    11. Identification of industry voluntary standards, best practices,
etc., related to automated vehicle operation.
    12. Information AVs may need to communicate to pedestrians and
other vehicles (manual or automated) just as a driver would. Consider
situations such as pedestrians crossing a travel lane in a parking lot
and how this communication should be accomplished.
    13. Conditions in which AVs may need to be able to identify and
communicate to a central location or authority that a problem has
occurred. Consider situations where passengers may be delivered to
their destination but a medical problem or potential incapacitation
enroute may potentially suggest considerations for vehicle capabilities
that could handle such cases.
    14. Operation of an AV with open safety recall: Consider if
automated vehicles should be allowed to operate in automated mode in
cases when there is an open safety recall on that vehicle or if
automated functions should be restrained until recall repairs are
completed (perhaps reversion to manual driving when possible). Consider
if AVs with open recalls should be allowed to operate on public roads
at all, and if so, under what conditions.
    15. Other topics needed for operational guidance: Other topics that
would be beneficial to address in an operational guidance document to
facilitate innovation and safe deployment of these systems on public
roadways.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated by 49 CFR
1.95.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2016-08708 Filed 4-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: July 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 41855]
[DOCID:fr19jy10-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-1750-000]

Stream Energy Pennsylvania, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

July 13, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Stream Energy Pennsylvania, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 2, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17552 Filed 7-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 28604-28605]
[DOCID:fr21my10-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-67-000]

The United Illuminating Company; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

May 13, 2010.
    Take notice that on May 12, 2010, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Rules
of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission), 18 CFR 385.207 (2010), The United Illuminating Company
filed a Petition for Declaratory Order, requesting the Commission to
issue an order declaring that the provision of electric energy to Elm
Electric Cooperative, Inc. for resale to its members is a transaction
at wholesale subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 11, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12230 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 96003-96004]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31587]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0524]

Listing of Ingredients in Tobacco Products; Revised Guidance for
Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of a revised guidance for industry entitled ``Listing of
Ingredients in Tobacco Products.'' The revised guidance document is
intended to assist persons making tobacco product ingredient
submissions to FDA as required by the Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act). We received several comments
to the draft guidance, and those comments were considered as the
guidance was finalized.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2009-D-0524 for ``Listing of Ingredients in Tobacco Products.''
Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the revised draft
guidance to the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug
Administration, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-2000. Send one self-
addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
request or include a fax number to which the guidance document may be
sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on
electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Collins, Center for Tobacco
Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-2000,
1-877-287-1373, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a revised guidance for
industry entitled ``Listing of Ingredients in Tobacco Products.'' We
are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices
regulation (21 CFR 10.115).
    The revised guidance document is intended to assist persons making
tobacco product ingredient submissions to FDA as required by the
Tobacco Control Act.
    The Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 111-31), enacted on June 22, 2009,
amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) and
provides FDA with the authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing,
and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health.
Among its many provisions, the Tobacco Control Act added section 904 to
the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387d), establishing requirements for tobacco
product ingredient submissions.
    The revised guidance discusses tobacco products that are newly
deemed subject to chapter IX of the FD&C Act. Cigarettes, cigarette
tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco (RYO), and smokeless tobacco were
immediately covered by FDA's tobacco product authorities in chapter IX
of the FD&C Act, including section 904, when the Tobacco Control Act
went into effect. As for other types of tobacco products, section
901(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387a) grants FDA authority to deem
those products subject to chapter IX of the FD&C Act. Under that
authority, FDA issued a rule deeming all other products that meet the
statutory definition of ``tobacco product'', set forth in section
201(rr) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)), except for accessories of
those products, as subject to chapter IX of the FD&C Act (81 FR 28974).
FDA published the final rule on May 10, 2016 and it became effective on
August 8, 2016. As a result, manufacturers or importers (or their
agents) of tobacco products subject to the deeming rule are now
required to comply with chapter IX of the FD&C Act, including the
ingredient listing requirements in section 904(a)(1).
    Section 904(a)(1) of the FD&C Act requires each tobacco product
manufacturer or importer, or agent thereof, to submit a listing of all
ingredients, including tobacco, substances, compounds, and additives
that are added by the manufacturer to the tobacco, paper, filter, or
other part of each tobacco product by brand and by quantity in each
brand and subbrand. For cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, RYO, and
smokeless tobacco products on the market as of June 22, 2009, the list
of ingredients had to be submitted by December 22, 2009. For
cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, RYO, and smokeless tobacco products not
on the market as of June 22, 2009, section 904(c)(1) requires that the
list of ingredients be submitted at least 90 days prior to delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce. Section 904(c) of the FD&C Act
also requires submission of information whenever any additive, or the
quantity of any additive, is changed.
    As described in the preamble to the final deeming rule, for
products other than cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, RYO, and smokeless
tobacco that are on the market as of August 8, 2016, FDA does not
intend to enforce the section 904(a)(1) ingredient listing submission
requirement until 6 months from the effective date of the rule or 12
months from the effective date for small-scale tobacco product
manufacturers. However, in the revised guidance, FDA is announcing an
additional 6-month compliance policy for newly deemed tobacco products
on the market as of August 8, 2016. Under this policy, FDA will not
enforce the ingredient listing submission requirement until August 8,
2017, for businesses that are not considered small-scale tobacco
product manufactures, and February 8, 2018, for small-scale tobacco
product manufacturers. Manufacturers of tobacco products introduced
into interstate commerce after August 8, 2016, must submit the
ingredient information required by section 904(a)(1) at least 90 days
before the product is delivered for introduction into interstate
commerce, as with cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, RYO, and smokeless
tobacco first marketed after June 22, 2009 (section 904(c)(1) of the
FD&C Act).

II. Significance of Guidance

    FDA is issuing this revised guidance consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents
the current thinking of FDA on ingredient listing. It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This revised guidance also refers to previously approved
collections of information found in FDA regulations. The revised draft
guidance includes information and recommendations for how to provide
ingredient listing submissions. The collections of information in
section 904(a)(1) of the FD&C Act have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0650.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain an electronic
version of the revised guidance at either https://www.regulations.gov
or http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/default.htm.

    Dated: December 23, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-31587 Filed 12-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: December 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 75803-75806]
[DOCID:fr12de08-128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket ID FMCSA-2008-0340]

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 24 individuals
for exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal vision standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 12, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2008-0340 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.

    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for
this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    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 the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://Docketsinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<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
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 24 individuals listed in this
notice each have requested 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 the exemption will achieve
the required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Bryant M. Adams

    Mr. Adams, age 43, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20
and in the left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2008, his
optometrist noted, ``I certify that in my medical opinion, Bryant Adams
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Adams reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 13\1/2\ years, accumulating 120,150 miles. He holds a Class
C operator's license from California. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and two convictions for moving violations in a
CMV, failure to obey traffic signals.

Ricky J. Childress

    Mr. Childress, 60, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due
to retinal detachment since 2001. The best corrected visual acuity in
his left eye is 20/30. Following an examination in 2008, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Childress has sufficient
vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle, based on how he has performed and functioned exceedingly well
in his field despite vision.'' Mr. Childress reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 437,500 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 2.3 million
miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Alabama. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows one crash, and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Thomas A. Crowell

    Mr. Crowell, 50, has a ruptured globe in his right eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained as a child. The best corrected visual acuity
in his right eye is 20/400 and in the left, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist noted, ``I certify that Thomas
Crowell has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Crowell reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 2 years, accumulating 60,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 4 years, accumulating 495,496 miles. He holds
a Class A Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from North Carolina. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash, for which he was
not cited, and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV: failure
to obey a traffic sign.

Henry L. Decker

    Mr. Decker, 58, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye since
birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and
in the left, 20/200. Following an examination in 2008, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Decker has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Decker reported that he has driven straight trucks for 40 years,
accumulating 600,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 7 years,
accumulating 59,500 miles, and buses for 6 months, accumulating 1,800
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.

Thomas E. Dewitt, Jr.

    Mr. Dewitt, 47, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50 and in the left,
20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``In my
medical opinion, applicant has sufficient vision to perform driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Dewitt reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 156,000
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.

David L. Dykman

    Mr. Dykman, 48, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due
traumatic injury that occurred in 2002. The visual acuity in the left
eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``It is my medical opinion that David has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Dykman reported that he has driven straight trucks for 19\1/2\
years, accumulating 163,800 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
6\1/2\ years, accumulating 45,825 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from
Idaho. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Milan D. Frasier

    Mr. Frasier, 58, has loss of vision in his right eye due to retinal
detachment that occurred in 2004. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is hand-motion vision and in the left, 20/20. Following
an examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist noted, ``It is my medical
opinion that Mr. Fraiser has sufficient vision to drive a commercial

vehicle.'' Mr. Frasier reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 30 years, accumulating 514,500 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Idaho. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

 Wilfred J. Gagnon

    Mr. Gagnon, 72, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to
a traumatic injury that occurred in 2000. The visual acuity in his left
eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted,
``In my medical opinion, I believe Mr. Gagnon's vision in his left eye
is sufficient to operate a commercial vehicle without glasses.'' Mr.
Gagnon reported that he has driven straight trucks for 54 years,
accumulating 1.9 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 30
years, accumulating 1.1 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Vermont. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Grady O. Gilliland

    Mr. Gilliland, 82, has loss of vision in his right eye due to optic
nerve hypoplasia since birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/400 and in the left, 20/30. Following an examination in
2008, his ophthalmologist noted, ``I feel that he has sufficient vision
to perform driving tasks required to operate commercial vehicles
knowing that his right eye has always been a poor vision eye all this
life.'' Mr. Gilliland reported that he has driven straight trucks for
64 years, accumulating 320,000 miles. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Alabama. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Harold J. Haier

    Mr. Haier, 42, has had amblyopia since birth. The best corrected
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/400.
Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``It is my
opinion that Mr. Haier has sufficient vision to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Haier reported that he has driven straight trucks for 24
years, accumulating 432,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for
less than 1 year, accumulating 800 miles, and buses for less than 1
year, accumulating 4,000 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.

Crayton Jones, Jr.

    Mr. Jones, 72, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to
a traumatic injury since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in
his left eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``I certify that in my medical opinion, he has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Jones reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 6 years, accumulating 150,000 miles, tractor-trailer
combinations for 6 years, accumulating 150,000 miles, and buses for 1
year, accumulating 1,000 miles. He holds a Class R operator's license
from Colorado, which allows him to drive any motor vehicle with a gross
weight of less than 26,001 pounds. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Timonthy L. Kelly

    Mr. Kelly, 44, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to
a traumatic injury sustained in 1984. The visual acuity in his left eye
is 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``In
my medical opinion, Tim has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Kelly reported
that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years,
accumulating 560,000 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.

Lewis A. Kielhack

    Mr. Kielhack, 35, has a macular scar that caused loss of vision in
his right eye due to a traumatic injury sustained in 1990. The best
corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400 and in the left eye,
20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``In my
opinion, Mr. Kielhack has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle. His vision has been
stable for over 18 years, and there is no indication that his vision
will change.'' Mr. Kielhack reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 14 years, accumulating 655,200 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 8 years, accumulating 24,000 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.

David Lancaster

    Mr. Lancaster, 44, has loss of vision in his left eye due to a
central scotoma that occurred as a result of a traumatic injury
sustained in 1990. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15 and in
the left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist
noted, ``It is my medical/optometric opinion that David Lancaster has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Lancaster reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 800,000 miles. He holds a
Class O operator's license from Nebraska. Class O operator's license
allows him to drive any non-commercial vehicle except motorcycles. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Brian M. Madaya

    Mr. Madaya, 48, has a retinal detachment in his right eye since
2004. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400 and
in the left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his
optometrist noted, ``Based on his very stable findings over the last
several years, I am confident that his vision is completely in line
with the Department of Transportation guidelines for operation of
commercial motor vehicles.'' Mr. Madaya reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 620,000 miles and tractor-
trailer combinations for 7\1/2\ years, accumulating 525,000 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.

Joe A. McIlroy

    Mr. McIlroy, 49, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
injury sustained in 1988. The best corrected visual acuity in his right
eye is 20/15. Following an examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. McIlroy has sufficient vision to perform
the driving tasks to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. McIlroy
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 28 years, accumulating
56,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 7 years,
accumulating 280,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New York. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and two
convictions for moving violations in a CMV, failure to obey traffic
signals.

Harry J. McSuley, Jr.

    Mr. McSuley, 71, has loss of vision in his left eye due to retinal
vein occlusion that occurred in 1998. The best corrected visual acuity
in the right eye is 20/20 and in the left eye, 20/200. Following an
examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist noted, ``In my

professional medical opinion, I feel Harry McSuley has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. McSuley reported that he has driven straight trucks for
55 years, accumulating 1,650,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 53 years, accumulating 3,445,000 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.

Robert S. Metcalf

    Mr. Metcalf, 57, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/300.
Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``Aside from
needing glasses for reading, Mr. Metcalf should have not problems
driving a commercial vehicle without correction.'' Mr. Metcalf reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 31 years, accumulating 620,000
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 28 years, accumulating 1.7
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Arizona. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Elmer R. Miller

    Mr. Miller, 64, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
a traumatic injury sustained in 1986. The best corrected visual acuity
in his right eye is 20/30. Following an examination in 2008, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``I certify that, in my medical opinion, he has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Miller reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 47 years, accumulating 564,000 miles. He holds a Class C
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.

Richard L. Moreland

    Mr. Moreland, 49, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due
to a traumatic injury sustained in 1966. The visual acuity in his left
eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted,
``Based on these findings, I feel Richard L. Moreland has the visual
abilities to safely continue to operate a commercial motor vehicle in
interstate commerce because his visual loss has been present since
1966.'' Mr. Miller reported that he has driven straight trucks for 23
years, accumulating 230,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Missouri. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Stanley J. Morris

    Mr. Morris, 46, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
a traumatic injury since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his
optometrist noted, ``I certify that, in my medical opinion, the
applicant's visual deficiency is stable and has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial motor
vehicle, and that the applicant's condition will not adversely affect
his ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.'' Mr. Morris
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating
264,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 6 years,
accumulating 399,000 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Missouri. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Barbara C. Pennington

    Ms. Pennington, 45, has a prosthetic right eye due to enucleation
following a traumatic injury in 1991. The best corrected visual acuity
in her left eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, her
ophthalmologist noted, ``The vision is stable in her left eye and Ms.
Pennington is able to operate a commercial motor vehicle from an ocular
standpoint.'' Ms. Pennington reported that she has driven straight
trucks for 1 year, accumulating 50,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 15 years, accumulating 1.5 million miles. She holds a
Class A CDL from Florida. Her driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Ronald M. Scott

    Mr. Scott, 52, has loss of vision in his right eye due to a
traumatic injury that occurred in 1984. The visual acuity in his right
eye is count fingers and in the left eye, 20/15. Following an
examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``I feel that Mr. Scott has
more than sufficient vision in his left eye to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Scott reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 2.6
million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 30 years,
accumulating 3 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Jeremichael Steele

    Mr. Steele, 41, has loss of vision in his left eye due to a retinal
scar sustained from a traumatic injury as a child. The best corrected
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in
2008, his optometrist noted, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Steele has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Steele reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 6 years, accumulating 240,000 miles, and buses for 7
years, accumulating 63,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North
Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes, and
one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he changed lanes
improperly.

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 January 12, 2009. 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: December 5, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E8-29415 Filed 12-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: August 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 51614]
[DOCID:fr30au06-101]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0684; FRL-8084-4]

Issuance of an Experimental Use Permit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted an experimental use permit (EUP) to the
following pesticide applicant. An EUP permits use of a pesticide for
experimental or research purposes only in accordance with the
limitations in the permit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Ball, Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or
sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
If you have any questions regarding the information in this action,
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0684. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard

copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket
Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. EUP

    EPA has issued the following EUP:
    82761-EUP-1. Issuance. Montana Microbial Products, 510 East Kent
Avenue, Missoula, Montana 59801. This EUP allows the use of 5.82 pounds
of the fungicide Bacillus mycoides isolate J on 232.25 acres of sugar
beets to evaluate the control of Cercospora Leaf Spot (Cercospora
beticola). The program is authorized only in the States of Minnesota,
Montana, and North Dakota. The EUP is effective from June 8, 2006 to
December 31, 2007.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136c.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

    Dated: August 21, 2006.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-14445 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55781-55782]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22097]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-548-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC ; Notice of
Application

    Take notice that on September 2, 2014, Natural Gas Pipeline Company
of America LLC (NGPL), 3250 Lacey Road, Downers Grove, Illinois 60615,
filed an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) for authorization to abandon by sale to Devon Gas Services, L.P.
approximately 96.28 miles of pipeline; 5,325 horsepower of compression;
and various taps and meters in Texas and Oklahoma, all as more fully
set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and
open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site web 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 the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Bruce
H. Newsome, Vice President, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America
LLC, 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515, by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings

associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and five copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 1, 2014.

    Dated: September 10, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-22097 Filed 9-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P