Food Food Codes Product EXPOSED/ PROTECTED FRUITS/ VEGETABLES, ROOT VEGETABLES Exposed 621011 Apple, dried 63143 Plum Fruits 621012 Apple, dried 63146 Quince 6210130 Apple chips 63147 Rhubarb/ Sapodillo 62104 Apricot, dried 632 Berries 62108 Currants, dried 64101 Apple Cider 62110 Date, dried 64104 Apple Juice 62116 Peaches, dried 6410409 Apple juice with calcium 62119 Pears, dried 64105 Cranberry Juice 62121 Plum, dried 64116 Grape Juice 62122 Prune, dried 64122 Peach Juice 62125 Raisins 64132 Prune/ Strawberry Juice 63101 Apples/ applesauce 6420101 Apricot Nectar 63102 Wi apple 64205 Peach Nectar 63103 Apricots 64215 Pear Nectar 63111 Cherries, maraschino 67102 Applesauce, baby 63112 Acerola 67108 Peaches, baby 63113 Cherries, sour 67109 Pears, baby 63115 Cherries, sweet 6711450 Peaches, baby, dry 63117 Currants, raw 6711455 Pears, baby, dry 63123 Grapes 67202 Apple Juice, baby 6312601 Juneberry 6720380 White Grape Juice, baby 63131 Nectarine 67212 Pear Juice, baby 63135 Peach ( includes baby foods/ juices except mixtures; excludes 63137 Pear fruit mixtures) 63139 Persimmons Protected 61 Citrus Fr., Juices ( incl. cit. juice mixtures) 63145 Pomegranate Fruits 62107 Bananas, dried 63148 Sweetsop, Soursop, Tamarind 62113 Figs, dried 63149 Watermelon 62114 Lychees/ Papayas, dried 64120 Papaya Juice 62120 Pineapple, dried 64121 Passion Fruit Juice 62126 Tamarind, dried 64124 Pineapple Juice 63105 Avocado, raw 64125 Pineapple juice 63107 Bananas 64133 Watermelon Juice 63109 Cantaloupe, Carambola 6420150 Banana Nectar 63110 Cassaba Melon 64202 Cantaloupe Nectar 63119 Figs 64203 Guava Nectar 63121 Genip 64204 Mango Nectar 63125 Guava/ Jackfruit, raw 64210 Papaya Nectar 6312650 Kiwi 64213 Passion Fruit Nectar 6312651 Lychee, raw 64221 Soursop Nectar 6312660 Lychee, cooked 6710503 Bananas, baby 63127 Honeydew 6711500 Bananas, baby, dry 63129 Mango 6720500 Orange Juice, baby 63133 Papaya 6721300 Pineapple Juice, baby 63134 Passion Fruit ( includes baby foods/ juices except mixtures; excludes fruit 63141 Pineapple mixtures) Volume II  Food Ingestion Factors Appendix 9B Exposure Factors Handbook Page August 1997 9B 9 Appendix 9B. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1989 91 USDA CSFII Data ( continued)

Food Food Codes Product Exposed 721 Dark Green Leafy Veg. 752167 Cucumber, cooked Veg. 722 Dark Green Nonleafy Veg. 752170 Eggplant, cooked 74 Tomatoes and Tomato Mixtures 752171 Fern shoots 7510050 Alfalfa Sprouts 752172 Fern shoots 7510075 Artichoke, Jerusalem, raw 752173 Flowers of sesbania, squash or lily 7510080 Asparagus, raw 7521801 Kohlrabi, cooked 75101 Beans, sprouts and green, raw 75219 Mushrooms, cooked 7510260 Broccoflower, raw 75220 Okra/ lettuce, cooked 7510275 Brussel Sprouts, raw 7522116 Palm Hearts, cooked 7510280 Buckwheat Sprouts, raw 7522121 Parsley, cooked 7510300 Cabbage, raw 75226 Peppers, pimento, cooked 7510400 Cabbage, Chinese, raw 75230 Sauerkraut, cooked/ canned 7510500 Cabbage, Red, raw 75231 Snowpeas, cooked 7510700 Cauliflower, raw 75232 Seaweed 7510900 Celery, raw 75233 Summer Squash 7510950 Chives, raw 7540050 Artichokes, stuffed 7511100 Cucumber, raw 7540101 Asparagus, creamed or with cheese 7511120 Eggplant, raw 75403 Beans, green with sauce 7511200 Kohlrabi, raw 75404 Beans, yellow with sauce 75113 Lettuce, raw 7540601 Brussel Sprouts, creamed 7511500 Mushrooms, raw 7540701 Cabbage, creamed 7511900 Parsley 75409 Cauliflower, creamed 7512100 Pepper, hot chili 75410 Celery/ Chiles, creamed 75122 Peppers, raw 75412 Eggplant, fried, with sauce, etc. 7512750 Seaweed, raw 75413 Kohlrabi, creamed 7512775 Snowpeas, raw 75414 Mushrooms, Okra, fried, stuffed, creamed 75128 Summer Squash, raw 754180 Squash, baked, fried, creamed, etc. 7513210 Celery Juice 7541822 Christophine, creamed 7514100 Cabbage or cole slaw 7550011 Beans, pickled 7514130 Chinese Cabbage Salad 7550051 Celery, pickled 7514150 Celery with cheese 7550201 Cauliflower, pickled 75142 Cucumber salads 755025 Cabbage, pickled 75143 Lettuce salads 7550301 Cucumber pickles, dill 7514410 Lettuce, wilted with bacon dressing 7550302 Cucumber pickles, relish 7514600 Greek salad 7550303 Cucumber pickles, sour 7514700 Spinach salad 7550304 Cucumber pickles, sweet 7520060 Algae, dried 7550305 Cucumber pickles, fresh 75201 Artichoke, cooked 7550307 Cucumber, Kim Chee 75202 Asparagus, cooked 7550308 Eggplant, pickled 75203 Bamboo shoots, cooked 7550311 Cucumber pickles, dill, reduced salt 752049 Beans, string, cooked 7550314 Cucumber pickles, sweet, reduced salt 75205 Beans, green, cooked/ canned 7550500 Mushrooms, pickled 75206 Beans, yellow, cooked/ canned 7550700 Okra, pickled 75207 Bean Sprouts, cooked 75510 Olives 752085 Breadfruit 7551101 Peppers, hot 752087 Broccoflower, cooked 7551102 Peppers, pickled 752090 Brussel Sprouts, cooked 7551104 Peppers, hot pickled 75210 Cabbage, Chinese, cooked 7551301 Seaweed, pickled 75211 Cabbage, green, cooked 7553500 Zucchini, pickled 75212 Cabbage, red, cooked 76102 Dark Green Veg., baby 752130 Cabbage, savoy, cooked 76401 Beans, baby ( excl. most soups & mixtures) 75214 Cauliflower 411 Beans/ legumes 75215 Celery, Chives, Christophine ( chayote) 412 Beans/ legumes 413 Beans/ legumes Volume II  Food Ingestion Factors Appendix 9B Page Exposure Factors Handbook 9B 10 August 1997 Appendix 9B. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1989 91 USDA CSFII Data ( continued)

Food Food Codes Product Protected 732 Pumpkin 752175 Hominy Veg. 733 Winter Squash 75223 Peas, cowpeas, field or blackeye, cooked 7510200 Lima Beans, raw 75224 Peas, green, cooked 7510550 Cactus, raw 75225 Peas, pigeon, cooked 7510960 Corn, raw 75301 Succotash 7512000 Peas, raw 75402 Lima Beans with sauce 7520070 Aloe vera juice 75411 Corn, scalloped, fritter, with cream 752040 Lima Beans, cooked 7541650 Pea salad 752041 Lima Beans, canned 7541660 Pea salad with cheese 7520829 Bitter Melon 75417 Peas, with sauce or creamed 752083 Bitter Melon, cooked 7550101 Corn relish 7520950 Burdock 76205 Squash, yellow, baby 752131 Cactus 76405 Corn, baby 752160 Corn, cooked 76409 Peas, baby 752161 Corn, yellow, cooked 76411 Peas, creamed, baby 752162 Corn, white, cooked ( does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or 752163 Corn, canned vegetable with meat mixtures) 7521749 Hominy Root 71 White Potatoes and Puerto Rican St. Veg. 7522110 Onions, dehydrated Vegetables 7310 Carrots 752220 Parsnips, cooked 7311140 Carrots in sauce 75227 Radishes, cooked 7311200 Carrot chips 75228 Rutabaga, cooked 734 Sweetpotatoes 75229 Salsify, cooked 7510250 Beets, raw 75234 Turnip, cooked 7511150 Garlic, raw 75235 Water Chestnut 7511180 Jicama ( yambean), raw 7540501 Beets, harvard 7511250 Leeks, raw 75415 Onions, creamed, fried 75117 Onions, raw 7541601 Parsnips, creamed 7512500 Radish, raw 7541810 Turnips, creamed 7512700 Rutabaga, raw 7550021 Beets, pickled 7512900 Turnip, raw 7550309 Horseradish 752080 Beets, cooked 7551201 Radishes, pickled 752081 Beets, canned 7553403 Turnip, pickled 7521362 Cassava 76201 Carrots, baby 7521740 Garlic, cooked 76209 Sweetpotatoes, baby 7521771 Horseradish 76403 Beets, baby 7521840 Leek, cooked ( does not include vegetable soups; vegetable mixtures; or 7521850 Lotus root vegetable with meat mixtures) 752210 Onions, cooked USDA SUBCATEGORIES Dark Green 72 Dark Green Vegetables Vegetables all forms leafy, nonleafy, dk. gr. veg. soups Deep Yellow 73 Deep Yellow Vegetables Vegetables all forms carrots, pumpkin, squash, sweetpotatoes, dp. yell. veg. soups Other 75 Other Vegetables Vegetables all forms Citrus Fruits 61 Citrus Fruits and Juices 6720700 Orange Pineapple Juice, baby food 6720500 Orange Juice, baby food 6721100 Orange Apple Banana Juice, baby food 6720600 Orange Apricot Juice, baby food ( excludes dried fruits)

Appendix 9B. Food Codes and Definitions Used in Analysis of the 1989 91 USDA CSFII Data ( continued) Volume II  Food Ingestion Factors Appendix 9B Exposure Factors Handbook Page August 1997 9B 11 Food Food Codes Product Other Fruits 62 Dried Fruits 67204 Baby Juices 63 Other Fruits 67212 Baby Juices 64 Fruit Juices and Nectars Excluding Citrus 67213 Baby Juices 671 Fruits, baby 6725 Baby Juice 67202 Apple Juice, baby 673 Baby Fruits 67203 Baby Juices 674 Baby Fruits MIXTURES Meat 27 Meat Mixtures ( includes frozen plate meals and soups) Mixtures 28

Grain 58 Grain Mixtures ( includes frozen plate meals and soups) Mixtures


A Federal Advisory Committee for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development January 23, 2006 SCIENCE TO ACHIEVE RESULTS ( STAR)/ GREATER RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES ( GRO) SUBCOMMITTEE DRAFT AGENDA Thursday, February 16, 2006 2: 00   4: 00 pm Eastern Time CONFERENCE CALL Participation by Teleconference Only 2: 00 2: 05 pm Welcome Subcommittee Chair 2: 05 2: 15 pm Administrative Procedures Lori Kowalski  Receipts, Time Sheets DFO  Logistics for Face to Face Meeting 2: 15 2: 30 pm STAR/ GRO Fellowship Programs Ms. Becki Clark  Overview EPA/ Office of Research and Development 2: 30 2: 50 pm STAR Fellowship Program Ms. Stephanie Willett EPA/ Office of Research and Development 2: 50 3: 20 pm GRO Fellowship Program Ms. Stephanie Willett EPA/ Office of Research and Development 3: 20 3: 30 pm Public Comments 3: 30 4: 00 Face to Face Meeting Coordination Subcommittee Chair  poster assignments  progress on charge questions  draft report Additional Needs/ Action Items 4: 00 pm Adjourn


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30209-30213]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12091]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0552; FRL-9780-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona; Motor
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve three revisions to the
Arizona State Implementation Plan submitted by the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality. Two of these revisions relate to an amendment
to Arizona's vehicle emissions inspection program that exempts
motorcycles in the Phoenix metropolitan area from

emissions testing requirements. The third revision expands the
geographic area in which various air quality control measures,
including the vehicle emissions inspection program but also including
other control measures, apply in the Phoenix metropolitan area. EPA is
approving these SIP revisions based on our conclusion that the SIP
revisions meet all applicable requirements and would not interfere with
reasonable further progress or attainment of any of the national
ambient air quality standards. EPA is finalizing this action under the
Clean Air Act obligation to take action on State submittals of
revisions to state implementation plans.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on June 21, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0552 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and
some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g.,
Confidential Business Information). To inspect the hard copy materials,
please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Response to Comments
III. EPA's Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On November 5, 2012 (77 FR 66422), EPA proposed to approve
revisions to the Arizona state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) that would
exempt motorcycles in the Phoenix metropolitan area from testing under
the Arizona motor vehicle emissions inspections and maintenance
(``VEI'') program and that would expand the geographic area in which
certain air pollution control programs apply within the Phoenix
metropolitan area. We proposed these actions under section 110(k) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''). (The State of Arizona developed the
VEI program to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from
in-use motor vehicles in the Phoenix and Tucson areas.\1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ VOC and NOX are precursors to ozone formation in
the atmosphere under the influence of sunlight and meteorology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, we proposed to approve the submittal on November 6,
2009 of ``Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Exemption
of Motorcycles from Vehicle Emissions Inspections and Maintenance
Program Requirements in Area A'' (October 2009) (``2009 VEI SIP
Revision'') and the submittal on January 11, 2011 of ``Final Addendum
to the Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Exemption of
Motorcycles from Vehicle Emissions Inspections and Maintenance Program
Requirements in Area A, October 2009'' (December 2010) (``2011 VEI SIP
Addendum'').
    As described in our November 5, 2012 proposed rule, the 2009 VEI
SIP Revision submittal includes a non-regulatory portion that provides
analyses of emission impacts due to the motorcycle exemption, a
demonstration that the exemption would not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
``standards''), and a contingency measure establishing a binding
commitment on ADEQ to request Legislative action to reinstate emissions
testing for motorcycles in the Phoenix area should the Phoenix area
experience a violation of the carbon monoxide NAAQS. The 2009 VEI SIP
Revision also includes a regulatory portion comprised by House Bill
(HB) 2280, enacted by Arizona in 2008 to take effect upon EPA approval.
HB 2280 amends the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) section 49-542
(``Emissions inspection program; powers and duties of director;
administration; periodic inspection; minimum standards and rules;
exceptions; definition'') by exempting motorcycles in Area A (i.e., the
Phoenix area) from emissions testing under the VEI
program.2 3 The 2011 VEI SIP Revision includes additional
information regarding the impacts of the motorcycle exemption on
attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1987 PM10
NAAQS and includes a substitute measure to offset the VOC emission
reductions foregone by the exemption of motorcycles from the VEI
emissions testing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The changes to ARS Section 49-542 are self-implementing,
which means that they become effective upon EPA approval as a
revision to the Arizona SIP. See page 4 of the 2009 VEI SIP
Revision.
    \3\ On January 28, 2013, at EPA's request, ADEQ supplemented
appendix A of the 2009 VEI SIP Revision with a certified copy of the
codified version of ARS section 49-542, along with two House Bills
that extended the conditional enactment date set for July 2010 in
House Bill 2280 to July 2012, and then to July 2014. We are taking
final action to approve this certified copy of ARS 49-542 in today's
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the SIP revision that would expand the geographic
area in which certain air pollution control programs apply within the
Phoenix metropolitan area, we noted in our November 5, 2012 proposed
rule that the relevant amended statutory definition of ``Area A'' was
included in ADEQ's May 25, 2012 submittal of the MAG 2012 Five Percent
Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (May 2012)
(``2012 Phoenix Area PM-10 Five Percent Plan''). Specifically, ADEQ
included ARS 49-541(1) (``Definitions'') as amended by the Arizona
Legislature in 2001 as part of the submittal of the 2012 Phoenix Area
PM-10 Five Percent Plan. ARS 49-541(1) establishes the boundaries of
Area A.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ADEQ included ARS 49-541(1) in exhibit 1 in Appendix C to
the 2012 Phoenix Area PM-10 Five Percent Plan. With respect to
ADEQ's May 25, 2012 SIP revision submittal of the 2012 Phoenix Area
PM-10 Five Percent Plan, EPA is taking action today only on the
amended statutory provision that expands the boundaries of Area A
[i.e., amended ARS 49-541(1)]. EPA will take action on the rest of
the 2012 Phoenix Area PM-10 Five Percent Plan in one or more future
rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in our proposed rule, Area A, as last approved in 2003
(68 FR 2912 (January 22, 2003)), includes all of the metropolitan
Phoenix carbon monoxide and 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas plus
additional areas in Maricopa County to the north, east, and west, as
well as a small portion of Yavapai County and the western portions of
Pinal County. ``Area A'' is also used by the State of Arizona to
identify the applicable area for implementation of a number of air
pollution control measures, including but not limited to the VEI,
cleaner burning gasoline (CBG), and ``stage II'' vapor recovery
programs. The amended ``Area A'' definition, included with the 2012
Phoenix Area PM-10 Five Percent Plan, extends Area A beyond the
boundaries approved by EPA in 2003 to add portions of Maricopa County
west of Goodyear and Peoria and a small piece of land on the north side
of Lake Pleasant in Yavapai County.
    As discussed in more detail on pages 66424-66428 of the November 5,
2012 proposed rule, we proposed to approve

the exemption for Phoenix-area motorcycles from the emissions testing
requirements under the VEI program because:
     With respect to all three SIP revisions, ADEQ has met the
procedural (i.e. public process) requirements for SIP revisions under
CAA section 110(l) and 40 CFR part 51, subpart F;
     With the emissions testing exemption for motorcycles in
the Phoenix metropolitan area, the Arizona VEI would continue to meet
Federal minimum requirements for vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
M) programs;
     The VEI program, as amended to exempt motorcycles from the
emissions testing requirement, would continue to meet or exceed the
alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard in the Phoenix area as
required under 40 CFR 51.351 and 51.905(a)(1);
     The motorcycle exemption would not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS and would thereby comply
with section 110(l) of the CAA because the potential incremental
increase in emissions of CO, VOC and PM-10 due to foregone motorcycle
emissions testing and maintenance would be more than offset by the
emissions impact of expanding the boundaries of ``Area A'' \5\ because
``Area A'' defines the area of applicability for various air pollution
control measures, such as the VEI program, the CBG program, the ``stage
II'' vapor recovery program, and various PM-10 control measures, and
expanding the boundaries of ``Area A'' thus extends these programs to
areas not otherwise covered for the purposes of the Arizona SIP; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, the proposed rule, at page 66427, compares the
estimated 1.3 metric tons per day of VOC emissions reductions from
expansion of Area A boundaries with the estimated 0.1 metric ton per
day of VOC emissions increases from foregone emissions testing under
the VEI program for Phoenix area motorcycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The 2009 VEI SIP Revision includes a commitment by ADEQ,
i.e., to request Legislative action to reinstate emissions testing for
motorcycles in the Phoenix area should the area experience a violation
of the CO standards, that we find complies with the contingency measure
requirements under section 175A(d) of the CAA with respect to the
Phoenix area, which is a ``maintenance'' area for the CO standard.
    For background information about the EPA's regulations governing
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs (I/M), the
development and evolution of Arizona's VEI program, EPA's actions in
connection with that program, as well as additional information
concerning the State's public process for adopting these SIP revisions,
and our rationale for proposing approval of the three subject SIP
revisions, please see our November 5, 2012 proposed rule.

II. Response to Comments

    Our November 5, 2012 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment
period. We received comments from 15 commenters on our proposed rule
during the public comment period. All of the commenters except for two
expressed their support for EPA's proposed action. In the following
paragraphs, we summarize the comments objecting to our proposed action
and provide our responses.
    Comment #1: The commenter agrees with the proposal to exempt
motorcycles from emissions testing, but objects to the expansion of
Area A because it expands the use of special gasoline blends (summer
and winter) that the commenter believes do nothing for the environment
and contribute to fuel shortages and excessive retail fuel costs. The
commenter also suggests that the emissions testing exemption for newer
model year vehicles be increased from 5 to 10 years based on engine
technology improvements.
    Response #1: First of all, EPA disagrees with the contention that
the special gasoline blends in effect in the Phoenix metropolitan area,
and referred to as the ``cleaner burning gasoline'' (CBG) program, do
nothing for the environment. To the contrary, EPA has approved a number
of Phoenix area air quality plans that rely on the continuation of the
CBG program to attain and maintain the NAAQS. For instance, in the
Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the
Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (May 2003), which was approved by
EPA at 70 FR 11553 (March 9, 2005), the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) credits CBG with providing over 20% of the CO
emissions reductions relied upon to demonstrate maintenance of the CO
standard through the first ten years beyond redesignation.\6\ More
recently, in the Eight-Hour Ozone Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment
Area (June 2007), approved by EPA at 77 FR 35285 (June 13, 2012), MAG
credits CBG with providing 3.5% of the NOX reductions that
the plan relies upon to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard in the Phoenix-Mesa area.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See page ES-7 of MAG's Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request
and Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (May
2003).
    \7\ See page ES-5 of MAG's Eight-Hour Ozone Plan for the
Maricopa Nonattainment Area (June 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we note that the commenter does not challenge EPA's
conclusion that the expansion of Area A meets all applicable CAA
requirements but rather contends that the extension of CBG to a larger
area would increase retail fuel costs and lead to fuel shortages.
However, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the minimum criteria set in the Clean
Air Act or any applicable EPA regulations. Thus, considerations such as
whether a State rule may be economically or technologically challenging
cannot form the basis for EPA disapproval of a rule submitted by a
state as part of a SIP [see Union Electric Company v. EPA; 427 U.S.
246, 265 (1976)]. Also, EPA disapproval of ADEQ's submittal of the
statutory provision expanding Area A would not prevent the
implementation of CBG in the larger area because the expanded
definition of Area A and related CBG requirements would still apply in
the larger area, and would still be enforceable, under State law,
regardless of EPA's action to approve or disapprove the amended
definition as a revision to the Arizona SIP.
    Lastly, with respect to the suggestion that the emissions testing
exemption for newer model year vehicles should be increased from 5 to
10 years, any changes to the exemption for motor vehicle emissions
testing would first require a change in Arizona law. Thus, the
commenter should direct this suggestion to State officials in the first
instance. If such a statutory change were to be adopted, ADEQ would
need to adopt and submit the change as a revision to the Arizona SIP,
including documentation showing that the revision meets all relevant
CAA and EPA requirements--including a demonstration that the change
would not interfere with reasonable further progress or attainment of
the NAAQS under section 110(l) of the Act. Upon receipt of a complete
SIP revision, EPA would then consider approval or disapproval in the
context of notice-and-comment rulemaking.
    Comment #2: The commenter objects to EPA's proposed approval of the
exemption for motorcycles because motorcycle-related emissions
contribute to the overall problem of poor air quality in the Phoenix
metropolitan area and should not be ignored even though it may be small
in comparison to the emissions generated by cars.

    Response #2: In support of the contention that motorcycle emissions
do contribute to overall air quality problems in the Phoenix
metropolitan area, the commenter presents an estimate of total
emissions from motorcycles in the Phoenix area that, as corrected for a
computational error and adjusted for unit conversions, are not
inconsistent with the corresponding estimates of motorcycle emissions
prepared by MAG in the Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (February
2009).\8\ However, we did not propose to approve the VEI exemption for
motorcycles based on the relatively low contribution of motorcycle
emissions to overall pollutant emissions in the Phoenix metropolitan
area. Rather, we based our proposed approval on our conclusion that the
VEI program, as amended to include the motorcycle exemption, would
continue to meet Federal I/M requirements and that any increase in
emissions due to the exemption would be offset by the reduction in
emissions due to the extension of various control measures to a larger
geographic area by virtue of the amended statutory definition of ``Area
A.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In Eight-Hour Ozone Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan for the Maricopa Nonattainment Area (February 2009) (see page
109 of the Appendix A, Exhibit 1 (``2005 Ozone Periodic Emission
Inventory''), MAG estimates that motorcycles in year 2005 emitted
approximately 660 tons per year (tpy), 200 tpy, and 2,620 tpy of
VOC, NOX, and CO, respectively, within the Phoenix-Mesa
8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The corresponding estimates
prepared by the commenter, as corrected for an error in computation
(i.e., the commenter's calculated estimate of CO per bike should
have been 33,817 grams (per year) instead of 3,137 grams (per year)
based on 7 grams per kilogram and 4,831 kilometers driven per year
per bike) and converted to tons per year, are approximately 360 tpy
for VOC (and for VOC+NOX) and 2,720 tpy for CO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, in connection with the emissions impact analysis
submitted by ADEQ, we agreed with its focus on the incremental change
due to foregone emissions testing and maintenance of motorcycles under
the VEI program rather than on total motorcycle-related emissions.
Next, we found ADEQ's emissions estimates for the incremental increase
to be reasonable. Converted to tons per year, ADEQ's estimates for the
incremental increase amounts to approximately 20 tpy for VOC and 100
tpy for CO (see the column labeled ``I/M benefit from motorcycle
testing and repair'' in table 2 of EPA's November 5, 2012 proposed
rule). As to this incremental increase in VOC and CO emissions, we
concluded that the incremental increase in emissions due to foregone
emissions testing and maintenance would not interfere with attainment
or maintenance of any of the NAAQS given the emissions benefits
associated with the expansion of Area A and the related extension of
various air quality control measures to the larger area, including the
VEI program, the CBG program, the vapor recovery program, and various
PM-10 control measures, given that the geographic applicability for all
of these programs is defined by ``Area A.'' See page 66426-66428 of
EPA's November 5, 2012 proposed rule.

III. EPA's Final Action

    Under section 110(k) of the CAA, and for the reasons set forth in
our November 5, 2012 proposed rule and summarized herein, EPA is taking
final action to approve the revisions to the Arizona SIP submitted by
ADEQ on November 6, 2009 and January 11, 2011 concerning the exemption
of motorcycles from the emissions testing requirements under the
Arizona VEI program in the Phoenix area, because we find that the
revisions meet all applicable requirements, and together with the
expansion of the geographic area to which the VEI and other air
pollution control measures apply, would not interfere with reasonable
further progress or attainment of any of the national ambient air
quality standards. In connection with our approval of the State's
exemption of motorcycles from the VEI emissions testing requirements,
we are approving an amended statute, Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS)
section 49-542, that codifies this exemption in State law.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Final approval of the current version of ARS 49-542
exempting motorcycles from VEI emissions testing requirements
supersedes the previous versions of ARS 49-542 approved by EPA and
made a part of the applicable Arizona SIP. The most recent prior
approval by EPA of ARS 49-542 was published at 72 FR 15046 (March
30, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also approving the revised statutory provision [amended
Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) section 49-541(1)], submitted by ADEQ on
May 25, 2012,\10\ that expands the boundaries of Area A, i.e., the area
in which the various air pollution control measures (including the VEI,
and cleaner burning gasoline and stage II vapor recovery programs) in
the Phoenix area apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Final approval of the amendment to ARS 49-541(1) expanding
the boundaries of ``Area A'' to those promulgated by the Arizona
Legislature in 2001 supersedes the previous versions of ARS 49-
541(1) approved by EPA and made a part of the applicable Arizona
SIP. The most recent prior approvals by EPA of the definition of
``Area A'' in ARS 49-541(1) were published at 68 FR 2912 (January
22, 2003) and 69 FR 10161 (March 4, 2004). The definition of the
boundaries of ``Area A'' in ARS 49-541(1) was the same in both the
2003 and 2004 final approval actions and reflect the boundaries
promulgated by the Arizona Legislature in 1999. Approval of the
amended statutory definition of ``Area A'' in today's final action
expands the geographic applicability of the VEI program, the CBG
program, the Stage II vapor recovery program and any other Arizona
SIP control measure that relies on the definition of ``Area A'' in
ARS 49-541(1) under the Arizona SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 22, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: February 4, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(155), (c)(156),
and (c)(157) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (155) The following plan was submitted on November 6, 2009 by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Affidavit by Efrem K. Sepulveda, Law Librarian, Arizona State
Library, Archives and Public Records, certifying authenticity of
reproduction of A.R.S. Sec.  49-542 (2008 edition) plus title page to
pocket part of Title 49 (2008 edition), signed January 11, 2013.
    (2) Arizona Revised Statutes (Thomson West, 2008 Cumulative Pocket
Part): Title 49 (the environment), section 49-542 (``Emissions
inspection program; powers and duties of director; administration;
periodic inspection; minimum standards and rules; exceptions;
definition'').
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision, Exemption of
Motorcycles from Vehicle Emissions Inspections and Maintenance Program
Requirements in Area A (October 2009), adopted by the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality on November 6, 2009, excluding
appendices A and C.
    (156) The following plan was submitted on January 11, 2011 by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Final Addendum to the Arizona State Implementation Plan
Revision, Exemption of Motorcycles from Vehicle Emissions Inspections
and Maintenance Program Requirements in Area A, October 2009 (December
2010), adopted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on
January 11, 2011.
    (157) The following plan was submitted on May 25, 2012 by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Affidavit by Barbara Howe, Law Reference Librarian, Arizona
State Library, Archives and Public Records, certifying authenticity of
reproduction of Arizona Revised Statutes Sec.  49-451 (sic) (corrected
to Sec.  49-541) (2001 pocket part), signed May 3, 2012.
    (2) Arizona Revised Statutes (West Group, 2001 Cumulative Pocket
Part): title 49 (the environment), section 49-541 (``Definitions''),
subsection 1 [Definition of Area A].

[FR Doc. 2013-12091 Filed 5-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61504-61505]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24905]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0497]

Global Implementation of the Veterinary Medicinal Products
Guidelines

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces its intention
to accept and consider a single source application for a cooperative
agreement to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). The OIE is
the intergovernmental organization responsible for improving animal
health worldwide and is recognized by the World Trade Organization
(WTO) as a reference for international sanitary rules, with 175 Member
Countries and Territories. The purpose of this agreement is to continue
outreach that began in fiscal year (FY) 2009 to expand capacity
building to support OIE's services and activities that are needed to
carry out OIE's Veterinary International Conference on Harmonization
(VICH) Global Outreach to disseminate and implement VICH guidelines at
the country level.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Program Contact: Merton V. Smith, Center for Veterinary Medicine
(HFV-1), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., rm. 177,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Management Contact: Katherine C. Bond, Office of the Commissioner,
Food and Drug Administration, White Oak Bldg. 32, rm. 3300, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-595-
5058, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Grants Contact: Kimberly Pendleton, Division of Acquisition and
Grants (HFA-500), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm.
2104, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For more information on this funding opportunity announcement (FOA)
and to obtain detailed requirements, please contact Kimberly Pendleton.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Funding Opportunity Description

RFA-FD-10-010
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number(s): 93.103 https://www.cfda.gov

A. Background

    FDA announces its intention to accept and consider a single source
application for award of a cooperative agreement to the OIE in support
of international technical capacity building activities that help to
assure that U.S. imports of veterinary medicinal products are safe,
effective, and of high quality and that food from treated animals is
safe and wholesome; to assist foreign regulators in developing and
using rigorous safety standards; to develop and foster mutually
beneficial regulatory partnerships; and to leverage resources for
capacity building through appropriate training and other activities.

B. Research Objectives

     Promote and enhance in OIE Members good veterinary
governance, which includes the compliance of Veterinary Services with
OIE

international standards, as an instrumental and essential prerequisite
to the establishment and effective implementation of adequate and
appropriate legislation covering all aspects of products for veterinary
use, including registration, quality control, distribution, monitoring
of quantities and final use.
     Develop and improve international and regional cooperation
in the establishment and enforcement of legislation to harmonize the
regulatory framework between OIE Member States so as to assist
countries in need to effectively institute and maintain such
mechanisms.
     Encourage countries to allocate appropriate human and
financial resources to veterinary services and laboratories to
correctly implement the OIE standards and guidelines related to
veterinary products and their control.
     Enhance capacities of national focal points for OIE on
matters related to veterinary products according to the suggested terms
of reference and encourage his/her participation in training sessions
and appropriate international gatherings and meetings.
     Promote the responsible and prudent use of veterinary
medicinal products, in particular of antimicrobials used in veterinary
medicine, and the monitoring of the quantities used and potential
existence or development of antimicrobial resistance in disease-causing
organisms affecting both humans and animals.
     Actively encourage the recognition and application of the
international recommendations, guidelines and tools developed by the
OIE and adopted by the World Assembly of Delegates on veterinary
products.

C. Eligibility Information

    The following organizations/institutions are eligible to apply: The
OIE.

II. Award Information/Funds Available

A. Award Amount

    FDA anticipates providing one award of $565,000 (total costs
including indirect costs) in fiscal year (FY) 2010 in support of this
project. Subject to the availability of funds and successful
performance, 1 additional year of support up to $565,000 per year will
be available.

B. Length of Support

    The support will be 1 year with the possibility of an additional
year of noncompetitive support. Continuation beyond the first year will
be based on satisfactory performance during the preceding year, receipt
of a non-competing continuation application and available Federal FY
appropriations.

    Dated: September 29, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-24905 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


TECHNICAL APPENDIX POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 8 HOUR OZONE NAAQS TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT Prepared for:

Ozone Policy and Strategies Group Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Prepared by:

E. H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 5528 B Hempstead Way Springfield, VA 22151 July 21, 2005 Pechan Report No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 1 Draft Report I. INTRODUCTION This technical support document was prepared to support the U. S. Environmental Agency ( EPA) in proposed rulemaking for implementation of the 8 hour, 0.08ppm Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The results contained in this document estimate emission reductions of NOx and VOC, control costs, and economic and energy impacts of implementing the standard.

The technical inputs used for the analysis include emissions inventories and air quality modeling results developed by EPA for the Clean Air Interstate Rule and ozone 8 hour design values derived from ambient ozone measurements. These were combined by EPA to develop emissions and air quality relationships, and estimates of the VOC and NOx emission reduction targets ( ERT) needed to obtain the ozone standard in 2010. Attainment costs were calculated by first applying required presumptive controls, if needed, and then additional control measures, in the order of least cost per ton, to meet NOx and VOC reduction target at the cheapest cost.

Estimates of the economic impacts and energy costs are estimated. Energy impacts are provided as addition energy costs and as a measure of the additional electricity, coal and natural gas due to implantation of the standard. The economic impacts reported are the average revenue per industrial sector and the mean and median control costs provided as the percentage of revenue per affected establishment.

This technical support document includes two assessments   a more flexible and a less flexible option. While both require reasonably available control technology ( RACT) and reasonable further progress ( RFP) requirements, the regulatory baseline provides for more flexible RACT and RFP implementation framework requirements. The results presented in the sections below provide estimates of the differences in cost, emission reductions, energy and economic impacts between meeting the less flexible implementation framework requirements for RACT and RFP versus the regulatory baseline. The data input details, methodology, results, and limitations for each assessment are noted in the sections that follow.

I I. REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS REQUIREMENTS ASSESSMENT Reasonable further progress is the incremental reductions in the emissions of the applicable air pollutant pursuant to Part D of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) and its Amendments. The RFP requirements in the CAA are intended to ensure that each ozone non attainment area provide for sufficient precursor emission reductions to attain the national ambient air quality standards for ozone. More specifically, Section 182( c)( 2) of the Act requires that each serious and above ozone non attainment area achieve actual VOC emission reductions of at least three percent per year averaged over each consecutive three year period beginning six years after enactment of the Act. One option under consideration with respect to mandatory reasonable further progress under the 8 hour ozone rule ( RFP; also sometimes described as rate of progress ROP), is to assume that an additional 15% VOC emission reduction is needed despite the area already having had and met a 15% reduction for the 1 hour standard. Note that this is the less flexible alternative. PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 2 Draft Report However, only a subset of the designated non attainment areas may be subject to RFP requirements. In order to determine areas where requirements may exist, EPA examined the classifications of designated Subpart 2 non attainment areas, as well as, the design values for designated Subpart 1 areas. Only Subpart 2 areas classified as moderate or above, and Subpart 1 areas that are " moderate like" ( design values greater than 0.92ppm) may have RFP requirements.

In addition, those Subpart 1 or 2 areas that have the aforementioned characteristics can avert RFP requirements by achieving an 8 hour design value of 0.84ppm or less in 2010 via the clean data policy. To determine which of the areas could avert such requirements, EPA used base case simulations of the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extension ( CAMx) for the areas outside California. EPA's analysis showed that 11 non attainment areas classified as moderate and above are projected to exceed the 8 hour ozone standard in 2010. These areas may be subject to a RFP requirement and additional calculations, as described below, were needed in order to make this determination.

A. CALCULATION METHODOLOGY The first step needed to determine if additional RFP emission reductions are required in the 11 areas is to compare VOC emission estimates of 2002 with 2008. This is because the VOC emission reductions obtained from 2002 to 2008 as a result of on the books Federal and local air pollution control programs count toward the 15% reduction requirement. For 8 hr ozone Implementation rule, 2002 is considered as the base year.

For this analysis, we used 2001, 2007 and 2010 annual emission inventories by non attainment area and sector ( stationary non point, off road, on road, point and electricity generating units). 2002 emissions, by non attainment area and sector, were estimated by the linear interpolation of the 2001 and 2007 inventories. Similarly, 2008 emissions were interpolated from the 2007 and 2010 projected inventories.

The RFP requirement for each non attainment area is calculated by subtracting 85% of 2002 emissions ( i. e. reduction by 15%) from the 2008 emissions. If this value is greater than zero, this is the RFP reduction requirement for that non attainment area. If that value is less than or equal to zero, no further RFP reduction is required.

The one variation to this calculation is that mobile source reductions are discounted by 13% ( i. e., only 87% of mobile source reductions are creditable toward the RFP progress requirements). The reason this discount is applied is because there are certain reductions in motor vehicle emissions that will occur in the future but are the result of actions taken prior to the enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

B. SAMPLE CALCULATION Below is a sample calculation for Chicago Gary Lake County, IL IN non attainment area:

2001 emissions totals = 136,743 tons PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 3 Draft Report 2007 emissions totals = 103,531 tons 2010 emissions totals = 124,683 tons Interpolation of 2001 & 2007 yields 2002 emissions= 131,208 tons Interpolation of 2007& 2010 yields 2008 emissions = 110,581 tons After discounting of mobile emissions by 13%, 2002 emission = 128,060 tons.

Additional VOC tons required to reduce = ( 2008 Emissions)  ( 85% of 2002 Emissions) = ( 110,581)  ( 0.85 x 128,060) = 1,731 tons C. RESULTS Table 1 shows the VOC progress requirements to meet a 15% reduction from 2002 emission levels by 2008. The 15% reduction calculation allows 100% credits for VOC reductions obtained from 2002 to 2008 through implementation of other emission reduction programs   except for the mobile source discount described above.

Table 1. What are the reasonable further progress requirements for VOC in nonattainment areas that are projected to exceed the O3 NAAQS in 2010?

Area Name Base Case 2010 VOC emissions ( tons) Estimated Additional VOC Reductions to Meet a Stringent 15% RFP Requirements ( tons)** Estimated Additional VOC Reductions Observed in 2010 as a % of 2010 Base Case Emissions Baltimore 74,205 0 0% Chicago 124,683 1,731 1.4% Cleveland 143,384 3,049 2.1% Dallas 163,259 4,561 2.8% Houston 180,976 0 0% Milwaukee 78,997 803 1.0% New York City 543,482 0 0% Philadelphia 267,448 0 0% Providence 57,929 8,209 14% Sheboygan 7,576 402 5.3% Washington DC 130,638 0 0%

III. DIFFERENCE IN COST, EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ENERGY, and ECONOMIC IMPACTS In this section, the total control cost, emission reductions, energy cost, and economic impacts differences between the two options are provided. The regulatory baseline for the difference analysis is the more flexible implementation framework for RACT and RFP.

A. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Twelve nonattainment areas outside of California are included in this analysis. These are the designated non attainment areas where adopting the less flexible RACT and RFP options could lead to cost, emission reduction, energy, and/ or economic impact differences relative to more PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 4 Draft Report flexible RACT and RFP options. These areas are shown in Table 2. This table provides the details of the RACT, RFP and ERT requirements for each area under both the more flexible and less flexible options. ERT requirements are the reductions in NOx and VOC that are needed by 2010 to meet the 8 hr ozone standard.

Multiple listings are provided for the Dallas and Raleigh areas because EPA designated more counties under 8 hr ozone standard than the 1 hour ozone standard. As a result and since these areas were designated as Moderate or above for their 1 hr non attainment designation, RACT is required only in the new counties. Our analysis assumes that all counties previously designated as moderate or above non attainment for the 1 hr ozone standard have met their RACT requirements in the base case. Multiple listings are provided for Chicago because EPA modeling determined that certain counties in the non attainment area required NOx reductions, while others needed VOC reductions, to meet the ozone standard.

While in the real world RACT applicability is determined on a case by case basis by the State, we make the following assumptions to identify RACT controls in counties where they are required.

  Current NOx control efficiency is zero ( i. e. uncontrolled utility and non utility source)   Total annual NOx emissions of the source is greater than 100 tons ( i. e., large source)   Control efficiency of the selected control measure is less than 81 percent for NOx   Control cost is less than $ 1,580 per ton NOx reduced ( i. e., cost effective control is available)   Control measure has the lowest NOx control efficiency from that source ( i. e., minimum control available)

1. Difference Analysis Methodology The cost and control measure database used in this analysis was created using AirControlNET. AirControlNET is a comprehensive database of control measures and cost information for reducing the emissions of criteria pollutants. The system links cost, applicability, and control efficiency information to emission inventory data to calculate control costs and emission reductions by individual source and control measure. It provides information on control efficiency, capital cost, operating and maintenance cost, annualized cost, cost effectiveness, and cost per year for each control measure/ source combination.

The cost of meeting the emission reduction requirements is determined under each option and area. This is done by using control techniques, efficiencies, and cost databases in concert with the incremental emission reduction, mandatory control measures, and progress requirements mentioned above. Where controls are prescriptive ( i. e. RACT and/ or RFP), the costing is straight forward and a command and control approach is used. PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 5 Draft Report Table 2. Does meeting the requirements of each of the options and ERT result in additional cost?

More Flexible Option Less Flexible Option Area* RACT Remaining RFP Requirement Remaining ERT Requirement RACT Remaining RFP Requirement Remaining ERT Requirement Allegan Co, MI ( 1) None None None Yes None None Chicago, IL ( 2) None None Yes None Yes Yes Chicago Gary Lake County, IL IN ( Cook, IL & L ( 2) None None Yes None None Yes Columbus, OH ( 1) None None None Yes None None Dallas, TX  5 Counties Area ( 2) Yes Yes None Yes None None Dallas, TX ( 2) None None Yes None Yes Yes Door Co, WI ( 1) None None None Yes Yes None Indianapolis, IN ( 1) None None None Yes None None Knoxville, TN ( 1) None None None Yes None None Milwaukee, WI ( 2) None None Yes None Yes Yes Providence ( All RI), RI ( 2) None None Yes None Yes Yes Raleigh Durham ( 1) None None None None None None Raleigh Durham Chapel Hill ( 5 Counties) ( 1) None None None Yes None None South Bend Elkhart, IN ( 1) None None None Yes None None Youngstown Warren Sharon, OH PA ( 1) None None None Yes None None *( 1)  Subpart 1 Area ( 2)  Subpart 2 Area PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 6 Draft Report For each non attainment area, control measures are applied, on the least cost basis, until the additional reductions are obtained to meet the ERTs provided by EPA. The least cost algorithm first applies the cheapest control by pollutant ( on a cost per ton basis), if the target is not met then the second least expensive control is applied and so forth until the reduction target is met or exceeded. The model first applies VOC controls and then NOx controls. For non attainment areas where the anticipated differences are the result of both the RACT and RFP, the emissions reductions from RACT and RFP are creditable toward the ERT requirements. This approach avoids overstating the emission reduction differences between the options.

For the RFP requirements, there are no prescribed control measure. In this case, a least cost algorithm was also used to identify and apply the control measures to meet the progress requirements, where applicable. First, the potential sources of emission and reductions and their costs are identified. Next, the lowest cost, second lowest, third lowest, and so forth control measures are selected until the progress requirement is met. Because of the discrete nature of control measures and their efficiencies, sometimes the emission reduction or progress target is exceeded.

The reductions required to meet RFP targets are allowed from sources within 100 km radius for VOC reductions and within 200 km radius for NOx reductions was selected on least cost basis. However, each time a source/ control measure from outside the non attainment area boundary is selected to meet RFP target requirement, the RFP target for that area is recalculated. RFP target recalculation is performed by adding the selected source emissions to the base inventory of the area. The RFP target recalculation followed the RFP target calculation methods described above.

Similarly, and after applying RACT and RFP, if an area requires additional reductions to meet the ERT, source/ controls within 100 km radius for VOC reductions and within 200 km radius for NOx reductions are allowed for selected on least cost basis.

2. Energy Impact Methodology This section provides the methodology used to estimate the energy cost differences ( electricity, natural gas, and coal) associated with adoption of each of the two scenarios. The installation of air pollution controls at polluting facilities produces increases in energy usage due to additional energy requirements of add on control devices, energy deficits, and changes in the combustion processes. Most air pollution control devices impose an additional energy demand to operate devices such as fans, pumps, and monitoring equipment. As an example, in selective catalytic reduction systems ( SCR), fans create the additional demand for energy because the catalyst core that forms the reactor reduces flue gas pressure and velocity. For a selective non catalytic reduction system ( SNCR), energy loses in the combustion process occur due to improper flow of inlet air or fuel rates, improper design of combustion zones, and the restricted movement of exhaust gases.

The net energy usage for add on control devices are estimated using data obtained from EPA's Control Cost Manual and Control Cost worksheets available from EPA's website PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 7 Draft Report ( http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ catc/ dir1/ c_ allchs. pdf). The add on control measures evaluated include four control devices: SCR, SNCR, water injection, and thermal incineration.

Energy costs by fuel type are estimated based on the cost of electricity, coal, or natural gas ( obtained from the Control Cost Manual) calculated as a percentage of the total annualized for that control measure. Using a SCR system installed on wall coal fired industrial boiler as an example:

Given that:

Electricity cost = $ 0.05/ kW Number of SCR operating hours = 8,760 hr/ yr SCR power consumption = 445 kW Capacity Factor = 27% Total Annualized Cost of SCR at this facility = $ 1,452,942/ yr then,

Electricity Cost = 445 kW x 8,760 hr/ yr x 0.27 x 0.05/ kW = $ 52,626/ yr and;

Electricity Cost as % of Total Annualized Cost = $ 52,626/$ 1,452,942 = 3.6%.

Table 3 summarizes the electricity, coal and natural gas as a percentage of the total annual cost for each control.

Table 3. What are the energy costs as a % of the total annualized control cost?

% of Total Annual Cost Control Measure Electricity Natural Gas Coal SCR 3.6 0 0 SNCR 1.3 0 3.8 Water Injection 3.6 0 0 NGR 0 85.5 0 Thermal incineration 8.2 6.1 0 3. Economic Impact Differences In general, implementation of the less flexible option increases the cost and the economic impact where these controls were required. These increased requirements result in more economic sectors being affected under the less flexible option.

In order to show these differences, the costs and emissions were summed by NAICS code and non attainment area and examined when differences in controls costs were observed. Point sources were summarized separately from the area/ mobile sources. To estimate economic PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 8 Draft Report impacts, control costs were compared to average revenue by area and sector obtained from the U. S. Census Bureau.

For example, in Chicago, IL for NAICS Code 441 ( Motor Vehicle and Part Dealer) three point source controls were chosen.

The total revenue obtained from census data was $ 8,732,937,000 ( see US Census website at http:// www. census. gov/ epcd/ ec97/ us/ US000. HTM). The difference in potential economic impact was calculated as the median control cost and average control cost for NAICS code 331 and presented as the percent of average revenue.

Total control cost = $ 369,326 Cost as percent of Revenue:

Average Cost = $ 369,326/$ 8,732,937,000 = 0.00411 %

Average control costs were used for point sources as measures of the potential economic impact. This is possible because the number of controls and the number of units are available. However for area and mobile sources, the number of sources in each category and the allocation are not available hence the total cost ( aggregated control cost) to the total revenue was used to present the economic impact.

B. RESULTS In this section, the total control cost, emission reductions, energy cost, and economic impacts differences between the less and more flexible options are provided.

1. Difference Analysis The results of the difference analysis are provided in Tables 3.2 and 3.3. Table 3.2 provides a summary of the differences in NOx and VOC emissions reductions by non attainment area. All reductions are presented as annual tons per year reduced. For each non attainment area the reductions are provided for RACT, RFP, and ERT for both the less and more flexible options. The differences shown in Table 3.2 are presented as the less flexible option minus the more flexible option. This means for differences greater than 1, the less flexible option requires more emission reductions. This is usually the case. The analysis results showed that small, but quantifiable NOx emission reduction differences were observed for Columbus OH, Indianapolis, IN, Knoxville, TN, Raleigh/ Durham, NC, South Bend, IN, and Youngstown Warren Sharon, OH PA. VOC differences were observed for Chicago, Dallas, Milwaukee, and Providence. Table 3.3 shows the costs associated with these emission reduction differences. Appendix A provides the detail results of the difference analysis including NOx and VOC ERTs and comments about each non attainment area and run.

2. Energy Impact PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 9 Draft Report Table 3.5 summarizes the electricity, coal and natural gas costs for the non attainment areas where there are cost differences between the two options. In this table, the energy requirements are noted first in dollar terms and then in physical terms given certain fuel cost and energy price assumptions from Energy Information Administration  DOE. These data were obtained from http:// www. eia. doe. gov/ emeu/ international/ prices. html# Fuels In terms of economic impacts, the anticipated differences in terms of numbers of facilities affected, economic sector ( North American Industrial Classification Code), and annualized control cost are identified. The annualized cost for affected facilities is compared to an annual revenue surrogate to illustrate the amount of the cost difference relative to the price of the product or service.

Table 7 shows the NAICS level data for points sources where differences were observed. Economic impact differences were observed between in Columbus, Knoxville, Providence, Raleigh, and Youngstown. For all but two instances, the impacts were less than 1% of revenue. For area source categories, the difference in control cost between the two options is shown in Table 8. Only one category had an impact more than 1%.

3. Economic Impacts Table 7 shows the NAICS level data for points sources where differences were observed. Economic impact differences were observed between in Chicago, Green Bay,  .. NAICS data, when there is difference in control cost between the two options ( area and mobile sources), is shown in Table 8.

In terms of economic impacts, the anticipated differences in terms of numbers of facilities affected, economic sector ( North American Industrial Classification Code), and annualized control cost are identified. The annualized cost for affected facilities is compared to an annual revenue surrogate to illustrate the amount of the cost difference relative to the price of the product or service.

C. LIMITATIONS It is the States that will implement the RACT and RFP requirements and other elements of the implementation framework. What is presented here is a simulation that should offer directionally sound results. The less flexible option should cost more in dollar, energy, and economic impact terms while getting more emission reductions. However, in some instances these additional emission reductions may be for one ozone precursor ( VOC) while the emission reduction target may be in terms of the other ozone precursor ( NOx) PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 10 Draft Report Table 4. What are the emission reduction differences between the two options?

Area * RACT VOC Emission Reduction TPY RACT NOx Emission Reduction TPY Remaining RFP VOC Emission Reductions TPY Remaining RFP NOx Emission Reductions TPY Remaining ERT VOC Emission Reductions TPY Remaining ERT NOx Emission Reductions TPY Total VOC TPY Total NOx TPY Allegan Co, MI ( 1)  Less Flexible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Allegan Co, MI ( 1)  More Flexible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chicago, IL ( 2)  Less Flexible 0 0 2,713 0 0 62,335 2,713 62,335 Chicago, IL ( 2)  More Flexible 0 0 0 0 0 62,335 0 62,335 0 0 2,713 0 0 0 2,713 0 Chicago Gary Lake County, IL IN ( Cook, IL & L ( 2)  Less Flexible 0 0 0 0 53,807 0 53,807 0 Chicago Gary Lake County, IL IN ( Cook, IL & L ( 2)  More Flexible 0 0 0 0 53,807 0 53,807 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Columbus, OH ( 1)  Less Flexible 0 1,061 0 0 0 0 0 1,061 Columbus, OH ( 1)  More Flexible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,061 0 0 0 0 0 1,061 Dallas, TX  5 Counties Area ( 2)  Less Flexible 0 3,367 0 0 0 0 0 3,367 Dallas, TX  5 Counties Area ( 2)  More Flexible 0 3,367 1,867 0 0 0 0 3,367 0 0  1,867 0 0 0 0 0 Dallas, TX ( 2)  Less Flexible 0 0 8,945 0 0 28,693 8,945 28,693 Dallas, TX ( 2)  More Flexible 0 0 1,867 0 0 28,693 1,867 28,693 0 0 7,078 0 0 0 7,078 0 Door Co, WI ( 1)  Less Flexible 0 0 1,025 0 0 0 1,025 0 Door Co, WI ( 1)  More Flexible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,025 0 0 0 1,025 0 Indianapolis, IN ( 1)  Less Flexible 0 723 0 0 0 0 0 723 Indianapolis, IN ( 1)  More Flexible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 723 0 0 0 0 0 723 Knoxville, TN ( 1)  Less Flexible 0 4,030 0 0 0 0 0 4,030 Knoxville, TN ( 1)  More Flexible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,030 0 0 0 0 0 4,030 Milwaukee, WI ( 2)  Less Flexible 0 0 1,085 0 0 24,867 1,085 24,867 Milwaukee, WI ( 2)  More Flexible 0 0 0 0 0 24,867 0 24,867 0 0 1,085 0 0 0 1,085 0 PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 11 Draft Report Table 4 ( continued)

Area* RACT VOC Emission Reduction TPY RACT NOx Emission Reduction TPY Remaining RFP VOC Emission Reductions TPY Remaining RFP NOx Emission Reductions TPY Remaining ERT VOC Emission Reductions TPY Remaining ERT NOx Emission Reductions TPY Total VOC TPY Total NOx TPY Providence ( All RI), RI ( 2)  Less Flexible 0 0 8,254 0 0 940 8,254 940 Providence ( All RI), RI ( 2)  More Flexible 0 0 0 0 0 940 0 940 0 0 8,254 0 0 0 8,254 0 Raleigh Durham ( 1)  Less Flexible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Raleigh Durham ( 1)  More Flexible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Raleigh Durham Chapel Hill ( 5 Counties) ( 1)  Less Flexible 0 965 0 0 0 0 0 965 Raleigh Durham Chapel Hill ( 5 Counties) ( 1)  More Flexible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 965 0 0 0 0 0 965 South Bend Elkhart, IN ( 1)  Less Flexible 0 333 0 0 0 0 0 333 South Bend Elkhart, IN ( 1)  More Flexible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 333 0 0 0 0 0 333 Youngstown Warren Sharon, OH PA ( 1)  Less Flexible 0 1,302 0 0 0 0 0 1,302 Youngstown Warren Sharon, OH PA ( 1)  More Flexible 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,302 0 0 0 0 0 1,302 * ( 1) Subpart 1 Area ( 2) Subpart 2 Area PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 12 Draft Report Table 5. What are the cost differences between the two options in millions of 1997 $?

Area* RACT Remaining RFP Requirement Remaining ERT Requirement Total Difference Allegan Co, MI ( 1)  Less Flexible

Allegan Co, MI ( 1)  More Flexible

Chicago, IL ( 2)  Less Flexible  0.5 104.1 104.6 Chicago, IL ( 2)  More Flexible   104.1 104.1 0.5 Chicago Gary Lake County, IL IN ( Cook, IL & L ( 2)  Less Flexible   184.9 184.9 Chicago Gary Lake County, IL IN ( Cook, IL & L ( 2)  More Flexible   184.9 184.9

Columbus, OH ( 1)  Less Flexible 1.0   1.0 Columbus, OH ( 1)  More Flexible     1.0 Dallas, TX  5 Counties Area ( 2)  Less Flexible 0.9   0.9 Dallas, TX  5 Counties Area ( 2)  More Flexible 0.9   0.9  PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 13 Draft Report Table 5 ( continued)

Area* RACT Remaining RFP Requirement Remaining ERT Requirement Total Difference Dallas, TX ( 2)  Less Flexible  2.1 41.2 43.3 Dallas, TX ( 2)  More Flexible   41.2 41.2 2.1 Door Co, WI ( 1)  Less Flexible  0.3  0.3 Door Co, WI ( 1)  More Flexible     0.3 Indianapolis, IN ( 1)  Less Flexible 0.8   0.8 Indianapolis, IN ( 1)  More Flexible     0.8 Knoxville, TN ( 1)  Less Flexible 1.0   1.0 Knoxville, TN ( 1)  More Flexible     1.0 Milwaukee, WI ( 2)  Less Flexible  0.0 34.2 34.2 Milwaukee, WI ( 2)  More Flexible   34.2 34.2 0.0 PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 14 Draft Report Table 5 ( continued)

Area* RACT Remaining RFP Requirement Remaining ERT Requirement Total Difference Providence ( All RI), RI ( 2)  Less Flexible  14.1 1.6 15.7 Providence ( All RI), RI ( 2)  More Flexible   1.6 1.6 14.1 Raleigh Durham ( 1)  Less Flexible

Raleigh Durham ( 1)  More Flexible

Raleigh Durham Chapel Hill ( 5 Counties) ( 1)  Less Flexible 0.4   0.4 Raleigh Durham Chapel Hill ( 5 Counties) ( 1)  More Flexible     0.4 South Bend Elkhart, IN ( 1)  Less Flexible 0.4   0.4 South Bend Elkhart, IN ( 1)  More Flexible     0.4 Youngstown Warren Sharon, OH PA ( 1)  Less Flexible 0.8   0.8 Youngstown Warren Sharon, OH PA ( 1)  More Flexible     0.8 21.5 * ( 1) Subpart 1 Area ( 2) Subpart 2 Area PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 15 Draft Report Table 6. What is the energy impact difference anticipated in 1997$?

NAA Electricity $ Electricity ( KWH) s Natural Gas $ Natural Gas ( m3) Coal $ Coal ( metric tons)

Indianapolis, IN 0 0 527,375 5,412,4595 0 0 Youngstown Warren Sharon, OH PA 1,962 43,6032 587,161 6,026,043 5,736 161 Knoxville, TN 9,422 126,9762 0 0 27,541 771 Raleigh Durham, NC 1,572 34,940 219,271 2,250,378 4,596 129 Total 12,956 34,9406 1,333,807 13,688,8797 37,872 1,061 PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 16 Draft Report Table 7. What are the economic impacts, by NAICS and area, when differences in costs are observed between the two options for point sources?

Cost as % of Revenue Area Name NAICS Control Cost Average Establishment Revenue ($ 1000) Mean Median NAICS Description Columbus, OH 3272 $ 238,688 $ 108,021 0.2210 0.2331 Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing Columbus, OH 327212 $ 571,722 $ 262,028 0.2182 0.2333 Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing Columbus, OH 452910 $ 95,277 $ 23,688 0.4022 0.4022 Warehouse Clubs and Superstores Indianapolis, IN 327213 $ 231,816 $ 24,184 0.9585 0.9585 Glass Container Manufacturing Knoxville, TN 311221 $ 285,218 $ 9,631 2.9614 2.9614 Wet Corn Milling Knoxville, TN 324122 $ 58,704 $ 9,629 0.6096 0.6096 Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing Knoxville, TN 327310 $ 44,057 $ 4,268 1.0324 1.0324 Cement Manufacturing Knoxville, TN 332114 $ 105,153 $ 3,303 3.1836 3.1836 Custom Roll Forming Knoxville, TN 332117 $ 266,140 $ 0 Powder Metallurgy Part Manufacturing Providence ( All RI), RI 313221 $ 12,766 $ 8,945 0.1427 0.1427 Narrow Fabric Mills Providence ( All RI), RI 313311 $ 148,384 $ 55,725 0.2663 0.2524 Broadwoven Fabric Finishing Mills Providence ( All RI), RI 313320 $ 50,911 $ 19,944 0.2553 0.2376 Fabric Coating Mills Providence ( All RI), RI 314991 $ 11,872 $ 1,946 0.6099 0.6099 Rope, Cordage, and Twine Mills Raleigh Durham Chapel Hill ( 5 Counties) 221111 $ 753,211 $ 315,521 0.2387 0.6837 Hydroelectric Power Generation Yonugstown Warren Sharon, OH PA 324199 $ 96,135 $ 16,133 0.5959 0.5959 All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Yonugstown Warren Sharon, OH PA 221111 $ 687,140 $ 77,024 0.8921 0.8921 Hydroelectric Power Generation PECHAN July 2005 Document No. 05.07.002/ 9010.466 17 Draft Report Table 8. What are the economic impacts, by NAICS and area, when differences in costs are observed between the two options for area sources?

Cost as % of Revenue Area Name NAICS Control Cost No. of Establishments Average County or Establishment Revenue ($ 1000) Mean Median NAICS Description Chicago, IL 441 $ 359,326 1,049 $ 8,732,937 0.0041 0.0061 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers Chicago, IL 446 $ 43,160 181 $ 315,206 0.0137 0.0170 Health and Personal Care Stores Chicago, IL 32412 $ 0 0 $ 544,453 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Paving, Roofing, and Saturated Materials Manufacturing Chicago, IL 44 45 $ 82,750 6,701 $ 20,531,805 0.0004 0.0005 Retail Trade Dallas, TX 441 $ 200,110 543 $ 2,133,241 0.0094 0.0106 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers Dallas, TX 446 $ 68,868 274 $ 300,401 0.0229 0.0255 Health and Personal Care Stores Dallas, TX 562 $ 442,768 341 $ 304,595 0.1454 0.5623 Waste Management and Remediation Services Dallas, TX 32412 $ 0 0 $ 80,811 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Paving, Roofing, and Saturated Materials Manufacturing Dallas, TX 44 45 $ 53,960 3,558 $ 7,907,424 0.0007 0.0008 Retail Trade Door Co, WI 321 $ 7,038 23 $ 69,084 0.0102 0.0102 Wood Product Manufacturing Door Co, WI 324 $ 0 0 $ 35,388 0.0000 0.0000 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Door Co, WI 326 $ 57,305 24 $ 296,622 0.0193 0.0167 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing Door Co, WI 337 $ 15,470 39 $ 370,721 0.0042 0.0039 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing Door Co, WI 441 $ 56,512 287 $ 1,476,822 0.0038 0.0038 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers Door Co, WI 447 $ 157,683 199 $ 327,953 0.0481 0.0528 Gasoline Stations Door Co, WI 562 $ 8,080 20 $ 44,506 0.0182 0.0273 Waste Management and Remediation Services Door Co, WI 31 33 $ 21,127 502 $ 7,732,375 0.0003 0.0007 Manufacturing Milwaukee, WI 324 $ 0 0 $ 43,911 0.0000 0.0000 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Milwaukee, WI 562 $ 24,429 363 $ 740,592 0.0033 0.0029 Waste Management and Remediation Services Providence ( All RI), RI 324 $ 0 0 $ 55,222 0.0000 0.0000 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing Providence ( All RI), RI 325 $ 10,804,849 60 $ 625,949 1.7262 1.5799 Chemical Manufacturing Providence ( All RI), RI 441 $ 32,200 362 $ 1,503,577 0.0021 0.0014 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers Providence ( All RI), RI 31 33 $ 3,015,749 250 $ 1,664,666 0.1812 0.2714 Manufacturing


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8764-8765]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3320]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2010-0981]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget: OMB Control Number: 1625-0073

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0073,
Alteration of Unreasonable Obstructive Bridges. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by
OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our
performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before March
17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2010-0981] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid
duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulation.gov.
(b) To OIRA by e-mail via<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) To
OIRA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk
Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Hand Delivery: To DMF address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-611), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2100 2nd St., SW., Stop 7101, Washington, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a

Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collections. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These
comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred
to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG 2010-0981], and must be received by March 17,
2011. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2010-0981], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an e-mail address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but please
submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2010-0981'' in the
``Keyword'' box. 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. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0981'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at  http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each
ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a
hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: USCG-2010-0981.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
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 a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (75 FR 67990, November 4,
2010) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no
comments.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Alteration of Unreasonable Obstructive Bridges.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0073.
    Type of Request: Extension of a previously approved collection.
    Respondents: Public and private owners of bridges over navigable
waters of the United States.
    Abstract: The collection of information is a request to determine
if the bridge is unreasonably obstructive.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains the same at 240 hours
a year.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: February 8, 2011.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-3320 Filed 2-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40648-40649]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0013]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 11 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate
CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in
one eye.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on July 19, 2018. The exemptions
expire on July 19, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], 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.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 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 http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On June 18, 2018, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from 11 individuals requesting an exemption from vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and requested comments from the
public (83 FR 28335). The public comment period ended on July 18, 2018,
and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red,
green, and amber.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows applicants to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their
driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency. The
qualifications,

experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and
discussed in detail in the June 18, 2018, Federal Register notice (83
FR 28335) and will not be repeated in this notice.
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 11
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, aphakia, complete loss of vision,
glaucoma, macular degeneration, macular scar, prosthesis, and retinal
scarring. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. Seven of the applicants were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood. The four individuals that
sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of
4 to 17 years. Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet
the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40
corrected vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has
sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV.
    Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of a
valid license to operate a CMV. By meeting State licensing
requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a
CMV, with their limited vision in intrastate commerce, even though
their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. We
believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history
provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely
in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations,
involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and
on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in
congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and
vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction
to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances
between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and
driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions.
    The applicants in this notice have driven CMVs with their limited
vision in careers ranging for 4 to 81 years. In the past three years,
one driver was involved in a crash, and no drivers were convicted of
moving violations in CMVs. All the applicants achieved a record of
safety while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the
likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate
their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their
vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA
concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the
future.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must be physically examined every year (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and
(b) by a certified Medical Examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) each driver
must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to
the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and
(3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or
keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 11 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement, 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:

Scott B. Barker (WA)
Christopher L. Binkley (NH)
Darrell B. Emery (TX)
Louis D. Faw (NC)
Troy L. Hargrave (MO)
Randall J. Kau (WI)
James M. O'Brien (MA)
Patrick A. Piekkola (SD)
Marco A. Pinto (NY)
Andrew R. Sampson, Jr. (MD)
Khamla Vongvoraseng (NC)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following
occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of
the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of
safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation
of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives
of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: August 8, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-17599 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P