[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48356-48362]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17293]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817; FRL-9949-46-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS98

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. This direct
final rule provides, for a period of 1 year, an additional compliance
alternative for sources that would otherwise be required to use an HCl
CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions limit. This
compliance alternative is needed due to the current unavailability of a
calibration gas used for quality assurance purposes. This direct final
rule also restores regulatory text requiring the reporting of clinker
production and kiln feed rates that was deleted inadvertently.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 8, 2016 without further
notice, unless the EPA receives significant adverse comment by August
24, 2016. If the EPA receives significant adverse comment, we will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0817, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
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. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web,
Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharon Nizich, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Organization of This Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?
    B. Does this direct final rule apply to me?
    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
II. What are the amendments made by this direct final rule?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior
proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and do
not anticipate significant adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed
Rules'' section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposed rule to amend the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement
Manufacturing Industry, if EPA receives significant adverse comments on
this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period
on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
    If the EPA receives significant adverse comment on all or a
distinct portion of this direct final rule, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that some or
all of this direct final rule will not take effect. We would address
all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed
rule.

B. Does this direct final rule apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this direct final
rule include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Category                          NAICS Code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland cement manufacturing facilities...............          327310
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
direct final rule. To determine whether your facility is affected, you
should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1340. If you
have questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this action

to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for
the entity or your EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR
63.13.

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

    Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comments that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0817.

II. What are the amendments made by this direct final rule?

    In response to a concern raised by a stakeholder regarding the
availability of calibration gases for HCl continuous monitoring
compliance, this direct final rule amends 40 CFR 63.1349(b)(6) of the
performance testing requirements for HCl by adding an alternative
method for performance testing. Under the current rule, the owner or
operator of a kiln subject to the emission limits for HCl in 40 CFR
63.1343 may demonstrate compliance by one of the following methods:
     An owner or operator of a kiln may demonstrate compliance
by operating a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) meeting
the requirements of performance specification 15 (PS-15), PS-18, or any
other PS for HCl CEMS in appendix B to part 60, with compliance based
on a 30-kiln operating day rolling average.
     If the kiln is controlled using a wet scrubber, tray
tower, or dry scrubber, the owner or operator, as an alternative to
using a CEMS, may demonstrate compliance with the HCl limit using one
of two options, described below.
    Under both options, a performance test must be conducted by the
owner or operator using Method 321. Under the first option, while
conducting the Method 321 performance test (note Method 321 is the HCl
stack testing performance method required by this rule), the owner or
operator simultaneously measures a control device parameter and
establishes a site-specific parameter limit that will be continuously
monitored to determine compliance. If the kiln is controlled using a
wet scrubber or tray tower, the owner or operator would monitor the
pressure drop across the scrubber and/or liquid flow rate and pH during
the HCl performance test. If the kiln is controlled using a dry
scrubber, the sorbent injection rate would be monitored during the
performance test. Under the second option, the owner or operator may
establish sulfur dioxide (SO2) as the operating parameter by
measuring SO2 emissions using a CEMS simultaneously with the
Method 321 test and establishing the site-specific SO2 limit
that will be continuously monitored to determine compliance with the
HCl limit.
    The current rule requires that if a source chooses to monitor HCl
emissions using a CEMS, they must do so in accordance with PS-15, PS-
18, or any other PS for HCl CEMS in appendix B to part 60 of this
chapter. (See 40 CFR part 60 appendix B.) Quality assurance procedures
for HCl CEMS require that they be capable of reading HCl concentrations
that span a range of possible emission levels below as well as above
expected HCl emission concentrations. These quality assurance
procedures require the use of National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST)-traceable calibration gases for HCl.
    Following our decision to create PS-18 and Procedure 6 for HCl
continuous monitoring in 2012, the EPA worked with NIST and commercial
gas vendors on development of NIST-traceable HCl gas standards to
support the PS-18 and Portland Cement Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) rulemaking. While some of the low HCl concentration
(<10 parts per million, or ppm) NIST-traceable gases have been
available on a limited basis since 2013, the full range of HCl
concentrations required to support all HCl emissions monitoring
technologies (including integrated path that requires concentrations
100 times higher) are not widely available at this time.
    The approach used by NIST in 2013 was to certify the Research Gas
Material (RGM) cylinders as primary gas standards. These cylinders
contain HCl gas and are provided to NIST by vendors for NIST
certification, and subsequently used by the vendors as transfer
standards to prepare the Gas Manufacturer Intermediate Standards
(GMIS). The GMIS cylinders are then used to produce NIST-traceable gas
cylinders that are sold commercially.\1\ The initial approach used by
NIST to certify the RGM cylinders was not viable in the long term as
the instrumentation used by NIST largely depleted the HCl RGM gas
volume, leaving little gas in the cylinder for the vendors to use in
preparing GMIS materials. Because of this concern, NIST initiated
development of an improved RGM certification procedure. The development
of both the initial and more recently improved approach has been
hampered by the challenges presented in handling HCl gas. HCl gas is
extremely reactive and difficult to handle in both gas cylinders and
analytically. As such, it has taken considerable time for NIST to
optimize the new analytical equipment and approach to achieve the
necessary uncertainty requirements (e.g., <1 percent uncertainty).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of
Gaseous Calibration Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-12/531, May 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the commercial establishment of NIST-traceable gases
is dependent on collaboration between NIST and the specialty gas
vendors. There are a limited number of vendors providing the stable,
accurate, low and high concentration cylinder gases to NIST to certify
as RGMs. NIST is now receiving a regular supply of candidate RGM
cylinders from these vendors and is beginning work on higher
concentration HCl gas standards needed to support integrated path HCl
monitors (IP-CEMS). Once the RGMs are available, the specialty gas
vendors must complete a series of procedures to establish the certainty
of their products which adds to the time to achieve wide commercial
availability.
    As a result, the EPA is providing, for a period of 1 year, an
additional compliance alternative for sources that would otherwise be
required to use an HCl CEMS. In this alternative, the HCl CEMS is still
required to be installed and operated, but actual compliance with the
HCl emissions limit is determined by a three run stack test. The HCl
CEMS will still provide a continuous readout of HCl emissions, but
because the CEMS will not be calibrated with the required NIST-
traceable calibration gases, the HCl measurement is not considered to
be sufficiently accurate on an absolute basis for compliance, but would
be sufficient to indicate any relative change in HCl emissions
occurring subsequent

to the compliance test. Therefore, the HCl CEMS under this alternative
would function as a continuous parameter monitor system (CPMS) as in
the case of the particulate matter (PM) CPMS requirement (see 78 FR
10014-10015, 10019-10020, February 12, 2013). Based on conversations
with gas vendors and NIST, we anticipate that NIST-traceable
calibration gases for HCl will be available in sufficient quantities
within one year of this notice (see J. Ryan, memo to S. Johnson, Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817, Status of NIST-Traceable Hydrogen Chloride
(HCl) Calibration Gases for Use With HCl Continuous Emissions
Monitoring Systems (CEMS) Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, June 22,
2016). Thus, this alternative will expire on July 25, 2017 and owner/
operators must have in place one of the original HCl compliance
demonstration alternatives (we anticipate HCl CEMS operated monitoring
equipment according to 40 CFR 63.1350(l)) by this date.
    Under this new, temporary alternative, the owner or operator would
demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test using
Method 321 and would monitor compliance with an operating parameter
limit through use of an HCl CPMS. For the HCl CPMS, the owner operator
would use the average HCl CPMS indicated output, typically displayed as
parts per million volume, wet basis HCl recorded at in-stack oxygen
concentration during the HCl performance test to establish the
operating limit. To determine continuous compliance with the operating
limit, the owner or operator would record the indicated HCl CPMS output
data for all periods when the process is operating and use all the HCl
CPMS data, except data obtained during times of monitor malfunctions.
Thus, continuous compliance with the operating limit would be
demonstrated by using all valid hourly average data collected by the
HCl CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average
operating parameter in units of the operating limit (indicated ppm) on
a 30-kiln operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end of
each new kiln operating day. An exceedance of the kiln 30-day operating
limit would trigger evaluation of the control system operation and
resetting the operating limit based on a new correlation with
performance testing. For kilns with inline raw mills, performance
testing and monitoring HCl to establish the site specific operating
limit must be conducted during both raw mill on and raw mill off
conditions.
    As is the case for the PM CPMS requirements (see 40 CFR
63.1349(b)(1)(i)), this alternative includes a scaling factor of 75
percent of the emission standard as a benchmark (2.25 parts per million
volume, dry basis @ 7-percent oxygen). Sources that choose this option
will conduct a Method 321 test to determine compliance with the HCl
emissions standard and during this testing will also monitor their HCl
CPMS output in indicated ppm to determine where their HCl CPMS output
would intersect 75 percent of their allowed HCl emissions, and set
their operating level at that ppm output. This scaling procedure
alleviates re-testing concerns for sources that operate well below the
emission limit and provides greater operational flexibility while
assuring continuous compliance with the HCl emission standard. For
sources whose Method 321 compliance tests place them at or above 75
percent of the emission standard, their operating limit is determined
by the average of three Method 321 test runs (for sources with no
inline raw mill) or the time weighted average of six Method 321 test
runs (for kilns with inline raw mills). We believe that by adopting a
scaling factor as well as the use of 30 days of averaged HCl CPMS
measurements, the parametric limit in no way imposes a stringency level
higher than the level of the HCl emissions standard and will avoid
triggering unnecessary retests for many facilities, especially for the
lower-emitting sources.
    In addition to adding the interim testing and monitoring provisions
for HCl, we are restoring a recordkeeping regulatory provision that was
deleted inadvertently during one of the recent rule revisions. The
provision in question is the former 40 CFR 63.1355(e). This provision
relates to the recordkeeping requirements for clinker production and
kiln feed rates. This requirement was added in the 2010 final
amendments and was not removed or revised in subsequent amendments to
the rule. This rulemaking restores this provision in the regulatory
text to ensure that the regulated community has a clear understanding
of the applicable compliance requirements.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulation (40 CFR part 63,
subpart RRR) and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0416. This action
does not change the information collection requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action
does not create any new requirements or burdens and no costs are
associated with this direct final action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will neither impose substantial direct
compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor
preempt tribal law. The EPA is aware of one tribally owned Portland
cement facility currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL that
will be subject to this direct final rule. However, the provisions of
this direct final rule are not expected to impose new or substantial
direct compliance costs on Tribal governments since the provisions in
this direct final rule are

adding an alternative to the HCl monitoring provisions, adding an
option which provides operational flexibility. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human
health or the environment.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 14, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency is amending title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart LLL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry

0
2. Section 63.1349 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(6)(v) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1349  Performance testing requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (v) As an alternative to paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, the
owner or operator may demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a
performance test using Method 321 of appendix A to this part. You must
also monitor continuous performance through use of an HCl CPMS
according to paragraphs (b)(6)(v)(A) through (H) of this section. For
kilns with inline raw mills, compliance testing and monitoring HCl to
establish the site specific operating limit must be conducted during
both raw mill on and raw mill off conditions.
    (A) For your HCl CPMS, you must establish a 30 kiln operating day
site-specific operating limit. If your HCl performance test
demonstrates your HCl emission levels to be less than 75 percent of
your emission limit (2.25 ppmvd @7% O2), you must use the
time weighted average HCl CPMS indicated value recorded during the HCl
compliance test (typically measured as ppmvw HCl at stack O2
concentration, but a dry, oxygen corrected value would also suffice),
your HCl instrument zero output value, and the time weighted average
HCl result of your compliance test to establish your operating limit.
If your HCl compliance test demonstrates your HCl emission levels to be
at or above 75 percent of your emission limit (2.25 ppmvd @7%
O2), you must use the time weighted average HCl CPMS
indicated value recorded during the HCl compliance test as your
operating limit. You must use the HCl CPMS indicated signal data to
demonstrate continuous compliance with your operating limit.
    (1) Your HCl CPMS must provide a ppm HCl concentration output and
the establishment of its relationship to manual reference method
measurements must be determined in units of indicated ppm. The
instrument signal may be in ppmvw or ppmvd and the signal may be a
measurement of HCl at in-stack concentration or a corrected oxygen
concentration. Once the relationship between the indicated output of
the HCl CPMS and the reference method test results is established, the
HCl CPMS instrument measurement basis (ppmvw or ppmvd, or oxygen
correction basis) must not be altered. Likewise, any setting that
impacts the HCl CPMS indicated HCl response must remain fixed after the
site-specific operating limit is set.
    (2) Your HCl CPMS operating range must be capable of reading HCl
concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to 125 percent of the
highest expected value during mill off operation. If your HCl CPMS is
an auto-ranging instrument capable of multiple scales, the primary
range of the instrument must be capable of reading an indicated HCl
concentration from zero to 10 ppm.
    (3) During the initial performance test of a kiln with an inline
raw mill, or any such subsequent performance test that demonstrates
compliance with the HCl limit, record and average the indicated ppm HCl
output values from the HCl CPMS for each of the six periods
corresponding to the compliance test runs (e.g., average each of your
HCl CPMS output values for six corresponding Method 321 test runs).
With the average values of the six test runs, calculate the average of
the three mill on test runs and the average of the three mill off test
runs. Calculate the time weighted result using the average of the three
mill on tests and the average of the three mill off tests and the
previous annual ratio of mill on/mill off operations. Kilns without an
inline raw mill will conduct three compliance tests and calculate the
average monitor output values corresponding to these three test runs
and not use time weighted values to determine their site specific
operating limit.
    (B) Determine your operating limit as specified in paragraphs
(b)(6)(i) or (iii) of this section. If your HCl performance test
demonstrates your HCl emission levels to be below 75 percent of your
emission limit, kilns with inline raw mills will use the time weighted
average indicated HCl ppm concentration CPMS

value recorded during the HCl compliance test, the zero value output
from your HCl CPMS, and the time weighted average HCl result of your
compliance test to establish your operating limit. Kilns without inline
raw mills will not use a time weighted average value to establish their
operating limit. If your time weighted HCl compliance test demonstrates
your HCl emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission
limit, you will use the time weighted HCl CPMS indicated ppm value
recorded during the HCl compliance test to establish your operating
limit. Kilns without inline raw mills will not use time weighted
compliance test results to make this determination. You must verify an
existing operating limit or establish a new operating limit for each
kiln, after each repeated performance test.
    (C) If the average of your three Method 321 compliance test runs
(for kilns without an inline raw mill) or the time weighted average of
your six Method 321 compliance test runs (for an kiln with an inline
raw mill) is below 75 percent of your HCl emission limit, you must
calculate an operating limit by establishing a relationship of the
average HCl CPMS indicated ppm to the Method 321 test average HCl
concentration using the HCl CPMS instrument zero, the average HCl CPMS
indicated values corresponding to the three (for kilns without inline
raw mills) or time weighted HCl CPMS indicated values corresponding to
the six (for kilns with inline raw mills) compliance test runs, and the
average HCl concentration (for kilns without raw mills) or average time
weighted HCl concentration (for kilns with inline raw mills) from the
Method 321 compliance test with the procedures in paragraphs
(b)(6)(v)(C)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Determine your HCl CPMS instrument zero output with one of the
following procedures:
    (i) Zero point data for in situ instruments should be obtained by
removing the instrument from the stack and monitoring ambient air on a
test bench.
    (ii) If neither of the steps in paragraphs (b)(6)(v)(C)(1)(i)
through (ii) of this section are possible, you must use a zero output
value provided by the manufacturer.
    (2) If your facility does not have an inline raw mill you will
determine your HCl CPMS indicated average in HCl ppm, and the average
of your corresponding three HCl compliance test runs, using equation
11a.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY16.018

Where:

Xi = The HCl CPMS data points for the three (or six) runs
constituting the performance test;
Yi = The HCl concentration value for the three (or six)
runs constituting the performance test; and
n = The number of data points.

    (3) You will determine your HCl CPMS indicated average in HCl ppm,
and the average of your corresponding HCl compliance test runs, using
equation 11b. If you have an inline raw mill, use this same equation to
calculate a second three-test average for your mill off CPMS and
compliance test data.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY16.019

Where:

Xi = The HCl CPMS data points for the three runs
constituting the mill on OR mill off performance test;
Yi = The HCl concentration value for the three runs
constituting the mill on OR mill off performance test; and
n = The number of data points.

    (4) With your instrument zero expressed in ppm, your average HCl
CPMS ppm value, and your HCl compliance test average, determine a
relationship of performance test HCl (as ppmvd @7% O2)
concentration per HCl CPMS indicated ppm with Equation 11c.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY16.020

Where:

R = The relative performance test concentration per indicated ppm
for your HCl CPMS;
Y1 = The average HCl concentration as ppmvd @7%
O2 during the performance test;
X1 = The average indicated ppm output from your HCl CPMS;
and
z = The ppm of your instrument zero determined from paragraph
(b)(6)(v)(C)(1) of this section.

    (5) Determine your source specific 30 kiln operating day operating
limit using HC1 CPMS indicated value from Equation 11c in Equation 11d,
below. This sets your operating limit at the HC1 CPMS output value
corresponding to 75 percent of your emission limit.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY16.021

Where:

Ol = The operating limit for your HCl CPMS on a 30 kiln
operating day average, as indicated ppm;
L = 3 ppmvd @7% O2;
z = Your instrument zero, determined from paragraph (b)(6)(v)(C)(1)
of this section ; and
R = The relative performance test concentration per indicated ppm
for your HCl CPMS, from Equation 11c.

    (D) If the average of your HCl compliance test runs is at or above
75 percent of your HCl emission limit (2.25 ppmvd@7% O2) you
must determine your operating limit by averaging the HCl CPMS output
corresponding to your HCl performance test runs that demonstrate
compliance with the emission limit using Equation 11e.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY16.022

Where:

Oh = Your site specific HCl CPMS operating limit, in
indicated ppm.
Xi = The HCl CPMS data points for all runs i.
n = The number of data points.

    (E) To determine continuous compliance with the operating limit,
you must record the HCl CPMS indicated output data for all periods when
the process is operating and use all the HCl CPMS data for calculations
when the source is not out of control. You must demonstrate continuous
compliance with the operating limit by using all quality-assured hourly
average data collected by the HCl CPMS for all operating hours to
calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units of the
operating limit (ppmvw) on a 30 kiln operating day rolling average
basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation
11f to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY16.023

Where:

30 kiln operating day parameter average = The average indicated
value for the CPMS parameter over the previous 30 days of kiln
operation;
Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i; and
n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 30
kiln operating days.

    (F) If you exceed the 30 kiln operating day operating limit, you
must evaluate the control system operation and re-set the operating
limit.
    (G) The owner or operator of a kiln with an inline raw mill and
subject to limitations on HCl emissions must demonstrate initial
compliance by conducting separate performance tests while the raw mill
is on and while the raw mill is off. Using the fraction of time the raw
mill is on calculate your HCl CPMS limit as a weighted average of the
HCl CPMS indicated values measured during raw mill on and raw mill off
compliance testing using Equation 11g.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY16.024

Where:

R = HCl CPMS operating limit;
b = Average indicated HCl CPMS value during mill on operations, ppm;
t = Fraction of operating time with mill on;
a = Average indicated HCl CPMS value during mill off operations ppm;
and
(1-t) = Fraction of operating time with mill off.

(H) Paragraph (b)(6)(v) of this section expires on July 25, 2017 at
which time the owner or operator must demonstrate compliance with
paragraphs (b)(6)(i), (ii), or (iii).
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.1350 is amended by adding paragraph (l)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1350  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (4) If you monitor continuous performance through the use of an HCl
CPMS according to paragraphs (b)(6)(v)(A) through (H) of Sec.  63.1349,
for any exceedance of the 30 kiln operating day HCl CPMS average value
from the established operating limit, you must:
    (i) Within 48 hours of the exceedance, visually inspect the APCD;
    (ii) If inspection of the APCD identifies the cause of the
exceedance, take corrective action as soon as possible and return the
HCl CPMS measurement to within the established value; and
    (iii) Within 30 days of the exceedance or at the time of the annual
compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct an HCl emissions
compliance test to determine compliance with the HCl emissions limit
and to verify or reestablish the HCl CPMS operating

limit within 45 days. You are not required to conduct additional
testing for any exceedances that occur between the time of the original
exceedance and the HCl emissions compliance test required under this
paragraph.
    (iv) HCl CPMS exceedances leading to more than four required
performance tests in a 12-month process operating period (rolling
monthly) constitute a presumptive violation of this subpart.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.1355 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.1355  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) You must keep records of the daily clinker production rates and
kiln feed rates.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-17293 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 237 (Thursday, December 10, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76649-76653]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30864]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 392

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0396]
RIN 2126-AB87

Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles: Use of Seat Belts

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

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to revise the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) by requiring that passengers in property-carrying
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) use the seat belt assembly whenever
the vehicles are operated on public roads. This rule would hold motor
carriers and drivers responsible for ensuring that passengers riding in
the CMV are also using the seat belts required by the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs).

DATES: You may submit comments by January 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments to the rulemaking docket should refer to Docket ID
Number FMCSA-2015-0396 or RIN 2126-AB87 and be submitted to the
Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration using any of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, Director; Carrier,
Driver, and Vehicle Safety Standards, Office of Policy, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>FMCSA office hours are
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t. Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to
the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Executive Summary
III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
IV. Background
V. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
VI. Regulatory Analyses

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (FMCSA-2015-0396), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
click on the ``Submit a Comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu, select
``Rules,'' insert ``FMCSA-2015-0396'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Submit a Comment''
in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound

format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to
know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and click on the ``Read
Comments'' box in the upper right hand side of the screen. Then, in the
``Keyword'' box insert ``FMCSA-2015-0396'' and click ``Search.'' Next,
click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. Finally, in
the ``Title'' column, click on the document you would like to review.
If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Executive Summary

Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions

    Section 393.93(b)(2)-(3) of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR 393.93) requires every truck and truck
tractor manufactured after the early 1970s to comply with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208 (49 CFR 571.208), relating to the
installation of seat belt assemblies, as well as FMVSS 210, dealing
with the installation of seat belt assembly anchorages, and FMVSS 207,
addressing seating systems more generally. Under FMVSS 208, trucks and
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds
manufactured on or after September 1, 1990, are allowed by S<IP_ADDRESS> an
option to comply by providing a ``complete passenger protection
system,'' but nearly all CMV manufacturers choose the second compliance
option (S<IP_ADDRESS>) and install a ``belt system.'' This second option
requires a seat belt assembly ``at each designated seating position.''
In short, the FMVSS and FMCSRs require seat belts at every seating
position in a CMV. In addition, 49 CFR 392.16 requires that a property-
carrying CMV which has a seat belt assembly installed at the driver's
seat shall not be driven unless the driver has properly restrained
himself or herself with the seat belt assembly. FMCSA proposes to
require that passengers riding in property-carrying CMVs also use their
seat belts when the vehicle is operated on public roads.

Benefits and Costs

    As indicated above, NHTSA requires vehicle manufacturers to install
driver and passenger seat belts in large trucks. FMCSA already requires
drivers to use their seat belts. However, the FMCSRs are silent on the
use of seat belts by passengers. This NPRM would require every
passenger to use a seat belt, if one was installed. The cost would be
the value of the person's time necessary to buckle the safety belt,
which is negligible. The benefits of this rule would be any fatalities
or injuries avoided as a result of seat belt use; these benefits are
discussed later.

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This NPRM is based on the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (1935 Act) and
the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act). The 1935 Act (49
U.S.C. 31502), authorizes FMCSA to prescribe requirements for the
safety of operation and equipment standards of for-hire and private
motor carriers. This NPRM is directly related to safe motor carrier
operations. The 1984 Act (49 U.S.C. 31136) required FMCSA to adopt
regulations to ensure, among other things, that ``commercial motor
vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely'' (Sec.
31136(a)(1)). This proposal would increase the safety, not only of
passengers, but also of CMV drivers whose control of the vehicle would
not be affected by unsecured passengers potentially thrown about the
cab as a result of emergency steering or braking maneuvers. A 2012
amendment to the 1984 Act requires FMCSA to ensure that CMV drivers are
not coerced to violate certain provisions of the FMCSRs (Sec.
31136(a)(5)). Given the obvious value of this proposal, and the ease of
compliance, the Agency believes that no one will be coerced not to wear
a seat belt. It should be noted that the 1985 Act also authorizes FMCSA
to ``perform any other acts [the Agency] considers appropriate'' (49
U.S.C. 31133(a)(1)), which clearly covers this common sense NPRM.

IV. Background

    This rulemaking responds to a petition submitted by the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) on October 29, 2013 (available in the
docket to this rulemaking). CVSA requested that FMCSA require all
occupants in a property-carrying CMV to restrain themselves when it is
being driven. The petition referred to data available from the Agency's
Report to Congress on the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (available
at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/research-and-analysis/research/large-truck-crash-causation-study).

V. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    Under this proposal the requirements of 49 CFR 392.16 would be
revised to include requirements for seat belt usage by passengers in
property-carrying CMVs. FMCSA proposes to revise the FMCSRs to prohibit
the driving of a property-carrying CMV unless the driver and all other
occupants have fastened their seat belts, if the vehicle is equipped
with such belts.
    Today's proposal responds to CVSA's petition, but has slightly
modified some of the petitioner's requests. FMCSA has used the word
``occupant'' in addition to ``passenger'' to make clear that the
regulation would apply to any person in the property-carrying CMV.
``Occupants'' would include instructors, evaluators, or any other
personnel who might be seated in a property-carrying CMV, regardless of
their status. FMCSA also proposes this requirement be applicable only
if there is a seat belt assembly installed in the property-carrying
CMV.
    FMCSA recognizes that section 392.60 prohibits the use of a CMV to
transport unauthorized passengers. Nevertheless, we believe today's
rule fills an important safety gap by requiring the use of safety belts
when the passenger seat is used by team drivers or other authorized
individuals.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) and DOT policies and
procedures, FMCSA must determine

whether a regulatory action is ``significant,'' and therefore subject
to OMB review and the requirements of the E.O. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one likely to result in a rule
that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government or communities.
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another Agency.
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof.
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the E.O.
    FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of E.O. 12866 or significant
within the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies
and procedures. The proposals contained in this document would not
result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, lead
to a major increase in costs or prices, or have significant adverse
effects on the United States economy.
    According to data from NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System,
available in the docket for this rulemaking, in 2013, 348 non-driver
occupants were in the truck at the time the vehicle was involved in a
fatal crash and were wearing a lap or shoulder belt. Seventeen of those
non-driver occupants were killed in the crash. Also in 2013, 122 non-
driver occupants of large trucks were involved in fatal crashes and
were not wearing a lap and or shoulder belt; of these, 30 were killed.
Sixteen of the 30 were totally or partially ejected from the truck. The
fatality rate was thus far lower among passengers who wore seat belts.
FMCSA believes that some of these fatalities could have been prevented
if this regulation had been in place.
    While all States but one have seat belt laws, failure to use a belt
may be either a primary of secondary offense and may not apply to a
truck passenger; furthermore, there may be differences in the weight
threshold at which the law applies. Therefore, adopting a Federal rule
applicable to non-driver occupants of CMVs, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5,
will provide a uniform national standard. To maintain eligibility for
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program grants, States would be
required to adopt compatible seat belt rules for non-driver occupants
within 3 years of FMCSA's publication of a final rule.
    Admittedly, FMCSA does not know how many trucks carry passengers,
or how many of those passengers fail to use existing seat belts.
However, given that the only cost of the proposal is the negligible
amount of time needed for occupants to buckle their seat belts, the
rule would obviously benefit motor carrier employees and passengers.
Seat belts have been proven to save lives, and while the specific
number of CMV-related fatalities that could be avoided is unclear,
FMCSA believes motor carriers' and drivers' compliance with a final
rule requiring the use of seat belts by non-driver occupants would save
lives.
    The Agency believes the potential economic of this NPRM impact is
positive, because it is likely that some lives will be saved at a cost
that would not begin to approach the $100 million annual threshold for
economic significance. Moreover, the Agency does not expect the rule to
generate substantial congressional or public interest. This proposed
rule therefore has not been formally reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises
small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all
regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to
lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II, Pub. L.
104-121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29, 1996), FMCSA does not expect the
proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. FMCSA believes the cost is minimal and poses
no disproportionate burden to small entities.
    Consequently, I certify that the proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
FMCSA invites comment from members of the public who believe there will
be a significant impact either on small businesses or on governmental
jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the
proposed rule.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy ensuring the rights
of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit
policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et
seq.), that would result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155
million (which is the value of $100 million in 1995 after adjusting for
inflation to 2014) or more in any 1 year.

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

E. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. The Agency determined that this proposed rule
will not create an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this notice of proposed rulemaking in accordance
with Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will
not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking
implications.

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has Federalism implications if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law
or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on the States. FMCSA
has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and
determined that it does not have Federalism implications.

H. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this program.

I. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O.
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

J. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through
regulations. No new information collection requirements are associated
with this NPRM.

K. National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act

    FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680,
March 1, 2004) that this action does not have any effect on the quality
of the environment. Therefore, this NPRM is categorically excluded (CE)
from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment
or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1, paragraph
6(bb) of Appendix 2. The CE under paragraph 6(b) addresses regulations
concerning vehicle operation safety standards. A Categorical Exclusion
Determination is available for inspection or copying in the
Regulations.gov Web site listed under ADDRESSES.
    FMCSA also analyzed this proposed rule under the Clean Air Act, as
amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and
implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general
conformity requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect
emissions of criteria pollutants.

L. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as
appropriate, ``disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations'' in the United States,
its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental
justice effects of this proposed rule in accordance with the E.O., and
has determined that no environmental justice issue is associated with
this proposed rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact
that would result from its promulgation.

M. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FMCSA has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. FMCSA has determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, the rule does not require a
Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

N. E-Government Act of 2002

    The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, Sec.  208, 116
Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct
a privacy impact assessment for new or substantially changed technology
that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an
identifiable form. FMCSA has not completed an assessment of the
handling of PII in connection with today's proposal because the NPRM
does not involve PII.

O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) requires Federal agencies proposing to adopt technical standards
to consider whether voluntary consensus standards are available. If the
Agency chooses to adopt its own standards in place of existing
voluntary consensus standards, it must explain its decision in a
separate statement to OMB. Because FMCSA does not intend to adopt its
own technical standards, there is no need to submit a separate
statement to OMB on this matter.

P. Privacy Impact Assessment

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447,
118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to
conduct a privacy impact assessment of a regulation that will affect
the privacy of individuals. This rule would not require the collection
of any personally identifiable information.
    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies
and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system
of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program. This
proposed rule would not result in a new or revised Privacy Act System
of Records for FMCSA.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 392

    Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers.

PART 392--DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES

0
1. The authority citation for part 392 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 13902, 31136, 31151, 31502; Section
112 of Pub. L. 103- 311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676 (1994), as amended by
sec. 32509 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 805 (2012); and 49 CFR
1.87.

0
2. Revise Sec.  392.16 to read as follows:

Sec.  392.16  Use of Seat Belts.

    (a) Drivers. No driver shall operate a property-carrying commercial
motor vehicle, and a motor carrier shall not require or permit a driver
to operate a

property-carrying commercial motor vehicle, which has a seat belt
assembly installed at the driver's seat unless the driver is properly
restrained by the seat belt assembly.
    (b) Passengers. No driver shall operate a property-carrying
commercial motor vehicle, and a motor carrier shall not require or
permit a driver to operate a property-carrying commercial motor
vehicle, which has seat belt assemblies installed at the seats for
other occupants of the vehicle unless all other occupants are properly
restrained by such seat belt assemblies.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on:
December 2, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-30864 Filed 12-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P