February 17, 2003 I ron and Steel Foundries NESHAP Docket EPA Docket Center ( Air Docket) U. S. EPA West ( MD 6102T) Room B 108 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Electronic Submittal ( no attachments) Paper Copy to Follow by Mail ( with attachments)

Attention: Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0034 Dear Sir or Madam:

United States Pipe and Foundry Co., Inc. ( U. S. Pipe) is the largest of four domestic producers of ductile iron pressure pipe and has six facilities in four states; Alabama, Tennessee, New Jersey and California. Last year these producers manufactured 1.8 million tons of ductile iron pipe for the distribution of potable water in the U. S. and for export markets.

U. S. Pipe operates two significantly different types of foundries. One is for the production of ductile iron pipe and utilizes water cooled steel molds and very little chemical or naturally bonded sand. The other is the more traditional kind of foundry utilizing sand molds and cores with both natural and chemically bonded sands for the production of fittings, valves and hydrants.

U. S. Pipe has a long history of involvement with EPA's development of the MACT and has hosted the EPA in visits to our facilities. We are pleased to submit the following comments on the proposed rule: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Iron and Steel Foundries; Federal Register, December 23, 2002 ( Volume 67, Number 246).

First, we will make several comments related to specific pages in the preamble; then comments will be addressed to specific sections of the proposed rule.

The Preamble Preamble page 78276 While permanent mold ductile iron pipe foundries do share some processes and similarities with traditional iron casting sand foundries, there are substantial differences in emissions from pouring, cooling and shakeout ( PCS). Pipe foundries do not use green sand, a common molding material, thus eliminating the 2 10% sea coal, petroleum products, organic flours and clays that contribute to the organic HAP emissions from sand foundries. Pipe foundries do use cores with binder chemicals in them but at much smaller sand   to iron ratios than sand foundries.

During the development of the Iron and Steel Foundry MACT standard, USEPA reviewed the melting operations ( cupola, electric arc furnace, and electric induction furnace) separately, even though each operation melts scrap metal. USEPA even identified and created limits for different core systems such as polyurethane no bake and furan core systems. Different mold systems were identified in the preamble ( green sand and permanent molds) but were not individually reviewed. We think more effort should have been expended to understand the very different pipe making process. This will be discussed in more detail in our comments. 2 Preamble page 78277 In its discussion of PCS, EPA clearly distinguishes between operations that bring molds to the metal and those that bring metal to the molds. This differentiation is important in separating area sources, usually small foundries with pallet lines where no fixed pouring station exists and where poured molds are moved manually to the shakeout, from, potentially, major sources which pour large castings in floor or pit areas and molds and iron are moved by overhead crane in buildings too large to reasonably capture and control. In either case, pallet line or floor/ pit pouring, it is often necessary to move or reposition poured molds in a pouring area; thus, EPA's requirement that molds remain stationary after pouring must be deleted to avoid compliance enforcement confusion.

I t is stated "  most cupolas employ afterburners which effectively destroy organic HAP." While coincidental destruction of HAP does occur, cupola afterburners were installed primarily due to safety concerns related to the uncontrolled explosive combustion of CO in the confined space above the cupola and/ or the associated pollution control devices. Cupola afterburners are designed to safely remove CO through controlled combustion with the ancillary recovery of heat for recuperative preheat of cupola combustion air. EPA does not define " afterburner" either physically or operationally. Since VOCs and organic HAPs are typically destroyed at a temperature lower than CO, organic HAP reduction also occurs. EPA, however, offers no definition for " afterburner". We intend to propose a definition.

Preamble page 78279 The preamble discusses the use of carbon monoxide ( CO) as a surrogate for organic HAP emissions from a cupola. CO is generated by the operation of a cupola. Uncontrolled concentrations vary with operating conditions, scrap materials being melted, coke sources and seasonal adjustments to the melting process. Absolute outlet concentration requirements will vary even under operation of the very best afterburner systems. It is more appropriate to require that a minimum temperature be maintained for afterburner systems.

The requirement of a set face velocity for the design of capture and collection systems defies all logic in engineering design. Designs must be based on the source size and configuration, plume characteristics such as temperature and contaminant properties, safety and health considerations and physical constraints affecting hood design and location. Control velocities might be more or less than 200fpm, but it is clearly absurd to specify a design number without considering any of the above mentioned design constraints.

EPA has proposed work practice standards for inspecting scrap. Scrap inspection cannot eliminate metallic HAP except when they are in a form easily recognized on the surface of a rail car or truckload shipment, e. g. shiny stainless steel containing chrome, an unwanted alloy contaminant. HAPs are trace components in the metal scrap and numeric limits on HAP in scrap metal cannot be established. Some HAPs are valuable components in the base iron for the product requirements. Some HAP metals are necessary to the melting process and are not only impurities in the scrap but required elements for the process. Shipments can only be inspected on the surface, as they are now by most foundries, but only rejected after an analysis upon melting. An inspection program fraught with potential compliance uncertainties will achieve no environmental benefit.

While scrap inspection programs have been established at many foundries to control the quality and properties on incoming scrap, much of the inspection and rejection burden lies on suppliers. Cursory overview of arriving loads of scrap does not provide control of HAPs. The inspection program that the EPA has laid out here is ambiguous at best   by their own comments. This program only serves to place an extra burden on the foundry industry. Because of the ambiguity, it will be both difficult to comply with and difficult to enforce. U. S. Pipe supports the elimination of the scrap inspection program since no floor has been established for HAP reduction. 3 EPA is proposing a requirement to "  manually ignite gases " from molds when no data exists demonstrating HAP reduction. Also, some molds may not light due to insufficient concentration of combustible gases. U. S. Pipe requests that this requirement be deleted.

EPA is proposing using production foundries for experimentation on reduced HAP binder formulations. This is not acceptable when an industry and government funded experimental foundry exists to do just this. The Casting Emission Reduction Program ( CERP) foundry in California, with EPA as a participant, is continually working with industry suppliers and foundries to development such materials and is the proper place for such experimentation to take place. U. S. Pipe supports the removal of all requirements for production foundries to be used as laboratories for new product testing. Any responsibilities for new product development and testing should rest with the suppliers.

Preamble page 78280 It is not practical to require a facility to test for three ( 3) consecutive operating hours. Equipment downtime, productivity, safety and other factors typically require some foundry processes to be temporarily placed on stand by.

Preamble page 78281 The agency indicates that " Although some variation exists in these ( foundry processes) operations at different foundries, these variations do not significantly alter the nature or amount of the HAP emissions from the individual emissions sources, the types of HAP emitted, or the control technology typically used to reduce HAP emissions." U. S. Pipe disagrees. In fact, U. S. Pipe and The American Foundry Society ( AFS) have argued that pipe foundries should be subcategorized based on the inherently different operations at PCS compared to a traditional sand foundry. A case for subcategorization of pipe foundries was presented to EPA and is contained in the docket at page II D 10, Document No. II D 108.

During the development of the Iron and Steel Foundry MACT standard, USEPA reviewed the melting operations ( cupola, electric arc furnace, and electric induction furnace) separately, even though each operation melts scrap metal. USEPA even identified and created different requirements for different core systems such as polyurethane no bake and furan core systems. Different mold systems were identified in the preamble ( green sand and permanent molds) but were not individually reviewed.

Permanent and semi permanent molds should have been reviewed and identified as insignificant HAP sources since the core sand to metal ratio is small. USEPA identified in the preamble that they are concerned about organic HAPs from molds after molten metal is poured. Permanent molds consist of water cooled steel molds. Typically, the core sand to metal ratio in a permanent mold pipe foundry averages about 0.017/ 1. As the following table shows, the ranges of sand to metal ratios in a typical green sand foundry are as high as 14/ 1 for mold sand and 2.5/ 1 for core sand. Permanent mold pipe making requires no mold sand thus making the difference even greater, i. e. 16.4   9.1 / 1. Semipermanent molds include graphite molds.

TABLE TYPICAL GREEN SAND FOUNDRY SAND TO METAL RATIOS BY WEIGHT CORE MOLD TOTAL SAND 14" Flg Ell .90/ 1 8.1/ 1 9.0/ 1 24" Flg Ell 1.25/ 1 8.2/ 1 9.45/ 1 30" Flg Ell 1.4/ 1 6.7/ 1 8.1/ 1 36" Flg Ell 1.5/ 1 6.2/ 1 7.7/ 1 42" Flg Ell 1.6/ 1 8.1/ 1 9.7/ 1 60" Flg Ell 2.5/ 1 13.9/ 1 16.4/ 1 4 TYPICAL PERMANENT MOLD CASTING SAND TO METAL RATIOS BY WEIGHT CORE MOLD TOTAL SAND Avg. Shell Core .017/ 1 0.0 .017/ 1 Avg. Cold Box .040/ 1 0.0 .040/ 1 With the exception of the cores, which are regulated in a separate section to this standard, permanent steel molds are similar to the continuous casting operation at integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities. Both operations cast into water cooled steel molds. Casting operations for integrated iron and steel manufacturers are not regulated under that industry's proposed MACT standard.

Language should be written that identifies non organic permanent and semi permanent molds as low emitters of HAP and, therefore, not required to meet the standards for pouring areas, pouring stations and pouring, cooling and shakeout operations.

The agency indicates, that in addition to those sources proposed for regulation under this NESHAP, "  numerous other ancillary emission sources that may contain trace quantities of HAP."  would not require regulatory limits. As a result of this review the agency determined that HAP emissions from sand handling systems, mechanical finishing operations, metal treatment operations, holding furnaces, and HAP metals from cooling lines and shakeout stations are de minimis and do not require regulatory limitations under the NESHAP. U. S. Pipe agrees with the agency that these sources are unlikely to contribute to ambient HAP emissions from iron and steel foundries and, therefore, supports the agency's approach.

We support and concur with the EPA comment noting that binder systems are selected based on performance characteristics and production requirements.

U. S. Pipe supports the determination to not control holding furnaces.

Preamble page 78282   3 We support not establishing opacity limits on exhaust stacks because emission limitations for the respective processes have already been established in the standard.

U. S. Pipe requests that EPA evaluate long form data for foundries that "  specify scrap selection as a work practice to reduce emissions ". This statement is contrary to our experience. Scrap inspection programs are in place for quality interests only and are not effective for HAP reduction. We agree that " Visual inspections are only able to identify obvious off specification materials " U. S. Pipe also believes that the most responsible process in which to recycle oil and grease contaminated scrap is in a wellcontrolled cupola melting operation such as found in our plants. Scrap inspection programs, as envisioned here, could potentially affect the nation's scrap recycling efforts.

Preamble page 78284 7 MACT for organic HAP emissions The preamble discusses the use of carbon monoxide ( CO) as a surrogate for organic HAP emissions from a cupola. CO is generated by the operation of a cupola. Uncontrolled concentrations vary with operating conditions, scrap materials being melted, coke sources and seasonal adjustments to the melting process. Absolute outlet concentration requirements will vary even under operation of the very best afterburner systems. Since VOCs and organic HAPs are typically destroyed at a temperature below that of CO, it is more than sufficient to require a minimum temperature and residence time be maintained for afterburner systems. 5 EPA reviewed various State requirements that regulate CO emissions from cupolas. Specifically, it cites the State of Illinois emission standard ( i. e., 200 ppmv CO) and identifies this limitation as " the most stringent and, therefore, the most effective in organic HAP emissions reduction." U. S. Pipe believes that the use of the State of Illinois standard is inappropriate since this standard was contested, found to be improperly derived, and to the best of our knowledge has never been enforced.

When this standard was promulgated it would have been applicable to the General Motors ( GM) facility in Danville, Illinois. After reviewing the basis for the standard, GM initiated legal proceedings to contest this limitation. In 1992, it was determined that the basis for this standard was severely flawed and, therefore, GM's facility was issued an exception from compliance and issued a much higher emission limitation ( i. e., 2,000 ppmv CO). ( See Illinois Rules, Section 216.382, Exception, General Motor's Ferrous Foundry in Vermilion County, added at 16 Ill. Reg. 18075, effective November 13, 1992).

Therefore, U. S. Pipe requests that the agency remove the State of Illinois standard from the determination of the MACT floor. The determination of the MACT floor for organic HAP emissions from cupolas is further discussed below in comments regarding § 63.7690( a)( 5).

MACT for HAP metal emissions EPA states that " We have credible emissions source test data for   12 ( cupolas) controlled by baghouses ". Our analysis of this data in Appendix D of the " Background Information for Proposed Standards" raises concerns over the credibility of some of this information. Three tests from Foundry WI 35 were used in the MACT floor determination. These tests all indicate such low measured values as to question whether sufficient sample was taken to achieve method detection limitations. Also, only one of these three tests reports the cupola melt rate during testing. Was this a newly constructed unit with no operational history? Such consistently low emission numbers are unusual and should be analyzed by EPA before using in the MACT floor determination. This test could not have been from a system performing at its " worst foreseeable circumstances" ( discussed later).

The data from Foundry MI 26 reported in Appendix D and also in the docket OAR 2002 0034, Document No. II D 110 is not credible based on the test report which states on page 4: " Because of the sampling location, ( outside, horizontal monovent, Harsell design) the samples were collected anisokinetically." This means the sample taken was not representative since it was taken at a non proportional flow rate. Also, " The baghouse doesn't follow the examples described in Method 5D, so a modified version of the method was employed." For these reasons these test results should not be considered in developing the MACT floor. See the attached test report.

EPA states that state PM emissions limitations are " much more lenient than actual emissions." U. S. Pipe believes that this statement is misleading and inaccurate and should not be the basis for excluding this information from the determination of the MACT floor. Specifically, in a footnote to the preamble, the agency indicates that the three state programs it reviewed have limits at 0.08 gr/ dscf or higher, and that 27 of 34 cupolas tested were measured at 0.07 gr/ dscf or lower. In review, these data do not demonstrate these state standards to be " lenient" but, rather, standards set at a level achievable " under the most adverse circumstances which can reasonably be expected to recur;" which is the standard required under the NESHAP process. Even a cursory review of these data shows that seven ( 7) units ( i. e., 34 minus 27) ( i. e., 20%) tested at or above the 0.08 gr/ dscf emission limit. In addition, those units that tested at 0.07 gr/ dscf are operating at 87.5 percent of the emissions level allowed under these State standards. In the light of this brief analysis, U. S. Pipe finds no basis for the agency to describe these state limitations as " much more lenient than actual emissions" and requests that the agency consider these data in the MACT floor analysis.

The agency, when proposing emissions limitations for several sources, discusses and applies a method to account " for the variability inherent in process operations and control device performance." However, the preamble offers no indication that this consideration was given to all of the proposed regulated operations for each emissions limitation. Further, U. S. Pipe believes that the agency, when accounting 6 for such variability, has focused solely on the control device performance and not properly considered the variability inherent in the process operations themselves.

The court, in National Lime Association v. EPA 1 held, in part, that, " to be achievable, we think a uniform standard must be capable of being met under most adverse conditions which can reasonably be expected to recur." In Sierra Club v. EPA 2, the court applied this principle to the NESHAP rulemakings and found that: "  EPA would be justified in setting the floors at a level that is a reasonable estimate of the performance of the " best controlled similar unit" under the worst foreseeable circumstances. It is reasonable to suppose that if an emission standard is as stringent as " the emissions control that is achieved in practice" by a particular unit, then that particular unit will not violate the standard. This only results if " achieved in practice" is interpreted to mean, " achieved under the worst foreseeable circumstances."

As a result of these decisions, U. S. Pipe believes that the agency must consider, and account for, the variability inherent in process operations and control device performance when determining the MACT floor for all sources, both existing and new, and for all regulated pollutants. However, in the preamble the agency utilizes a method to account for variability only in a limited number of circumstances. U. S. Pipe knows of no basis for limiting this consideration and, therefore, requests that the agency reconsider all of the proposed emissions limitations for all sources to address this variability.

While reviewing related issues, in Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA 3, the court cited and summarized the previous decision:

Sierra Club permits EPA to account for variability by setting floors at a level that reasonably estimates " the performance of the ` best controlled similar unit' under the worst foreseeable circumstances."

I n addition, the court also found that factors other than the control technology identified as MACT may influence the achievability of an emission limitation and, therefore, should be considered in the MACT floor determination. Specifically, the court found that:

  whether variability in the MACT control ( technology*) accurately estimates variability associated with the best performing sources depends on whether factors other than the MACT control contribute to emissions. In other words, if factors other than MACT technology do indeed influence a source's performance, it is not sufficient that EPA considered sources using only well designed and properly operated MACT controls ( to determine the MACT floor*). [*  clarifications added].

Based upon the court's instructions in Cement Kiln, U. S. Pipe believes that it is improper for the agency to determine an operation's inherent variability based upon the limited number of sources that utilize the MACT technology. U. S. Pipe believes that Cement Kiln holds that the agency must consider the process variability of all similar sources within the industry, regardless of their control technology, where such process variability can influence emissions. However, in the preamble the agency repeatedly notes that sources without the MACT control technology were " not used in estimating the RSD ( relative standard deviation) because available emissions source test data clearly demonstrate that the ( sources) controlled with these devices were not among the best performing 12 percent of sources." Therefore, U. S. Pipe requests that the agency reconsider all of the proposed emissions limitations to consider the process variability of these operations throughout the industry.

I n summary, we believe that the agency must consider, and account for, " the variability inherent in process operations and control device performance" when determining the MACT floor for all sources, both existing and new, and for all regulated pollutants. In addition, when establishing these floor levels, U. S. Pipe believes that the agency must account for those process variables encountered throughout the industry, other than MACT technology, that account for " the most adverse circumstances which can 1 National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 200 U. S. App. D. C. 363, 627 F. 2d 416, 431 n. 46 ( D. C. Cir. 1980). 2 Sierra Club v. EPA, 334 U. S. App. D. C. 421, 167 F. 3d 658 ( D. C. Cir. 1999). 3 Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F. 3d 855 ( D. C. Cir. 2001). 7 reasonably be expected to recur." Therefore, U. S. Pipe believes that the emissions standards proposed in § 63.7690, in order to be " achievable," should be reconsidered.

Preamble page 78292, 3 EPA states that the most common control method for organic HAP in a pouring, cooling and shakeout area or line is the ignition of mold off gas. Light off is not used for organic emission control and no data exists, to our knowledge, which indicates this. Light off is usually spontaneous but frequently does not occur due to insufficient concentrations of mold gas. Ignition cannot be ensured. This requirement must be eliminated.

Preamble page 78298 EPA is requiring the use of bag leak detectors on baghouses to determine when they are performing properly on a continuous basis. Two of our U. S. Pipe members utilize Harsell baghouses or an open construction, single compartment baghouse with no stack. Exhaust is discharged through a continuous roof top monovent. Bag leak detectors are not feasible for this design since the single compartment and monovent can be 120 to 300 feet long. State and local Title V permit conditions require visible emission readings to be taken and recorded and these should be sufficient for compliance certification.

The proposed rule § 63.7681   Sources Subject to this Subpart § 63.7682( b)  Identification and Definition of ` Affected Sources' The proposed rule, at § 63.7682( b), divides foundries into two affected sources: a ` metal casting department' and a ` mold and core making department.' This apportionment does not accurately reflect the operation of most foundries. Specifically, most foundries are organized into three general types of operations:

` Mold and core making departments' as defined in the proposed rule;

` Melting departments' where raw metals are processed, melted, and the molten metal is tapped; and ` Casting processing departments' where the cast metals are poured, cooled and cleaned.

Therefore, U. S. Pipe recommends that the rule be modified to reflect these departments as the " affected sources" regulated in this NESHAP.

Further, U. S. Pipe believes that the regulation should clarify that a foundry may contain multiple affected sources of the same type. Specifically, a foundry may have multiple melting departments that are unrelated ( e. g., a cupola and a furnace), multiple mold and core making departments ( e. g., a green sand system and a furan warm box system, or two separate green sand systems), and multiple casting processing departments ( e. g., a floor casting department and a continuous casting department, or several unrelated continuous casting departments). These similar departments can be both operationally and physically removed from each other and should not be considered as one operation or system.

Therefore, U. S. Pipe recommends that the definitions at § 63.7762 be amended, as follows, to divide the current definition of " metal casting department" into separate definitions for " melting department" and " casting processing department." In addition, the definitions of the ` affected sources' should reflect the potential for the existence of multiple departments of the same type.

Proposed definitions: " Mold and core making department means the area of a foundry and associated equipment in which all operations needed to produce molds, mold sections, and cores are done, including those operations performed in mold or core making and mold or core coating lines. A foundry may have multiple mold and core making departments." 8 " Melting department means a metal melting furnace at a foundry and the associated equipment in which all operations needed to melt metal are done, including preparation of furnace feed, melting metal, and transferring molten metal to pouring stations. A foundry may have multiple melting departments."

" Casting processing department means the area of a foundry and associated equipment in which all operations needed to pour and produce mechanically finished castings are done, including pouring metal into molds, cooling molds, and separating castings from molds. A foundry may have multiple casting processing departments."

Additional sections of the regulation will have to be adjusted to reflect this change, including the citing of " affected sources" at § 63.7682( b) and ( c).

§ 63.7683( a)   Compliance Dates The proposed rule, at § 63.7683( a), would require that existing sources comply with these regulations no later than three ( 3) years after they become final rules. U. S. Pipe endorses this compliance schedule since several of the proposed emission limitations, work practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements will require significant investment and engineering as well as considerable onsite construction activities.

§ 63.7683( b) and ( c)   Compliance Dates The proposed rules, at § 63.7683 ( b) and ( c), do not properly account for new sources that commence construction or reconstruction in the period between the proposal of this standard and the finalizing of these rules. The rules should indicate that sources constructed or reconstructed during this period might be exempted from achieving compliance for three ( 3) years.

As currently proposed the regulations would require that any " new" source achieve compliance with the standard by the date the rule becomes final [ see § 63.7683( b)] or at initial startup [ see § 63.7683( c)]. However, the Clean Air Act, at § 112( i)( 2), states that:

  a new source which commences construction or reconstruction after a standard, limitation or regulation applicable to such source is proposed and before such standard, limitation or regulation is promulgated shall not be required to comply with such promulgated standard until the date three ( 3) years after the date of promulgation if

( A) the promulgated standard, limitation or regulation is more stringent than the standard, limitation or regulation proposed; and ( B) the source complies with the standard, limitation, or regulation as proposed during the 3 year period immediately after promulgation.

Therefore, U. S. Pipe requests that § 63.7683 be amended to reflect this provision of the Clean Air Act.

§ 63.7690( a)( 1)   PM Emissions Limitations   Existing Metal Melting Furnaces and Scrap Preheaters The proposed rules, at § 63.7690( a)( 1), would require that particulate matter ( PM) emissions from existing metal melting furnaces and scrap preheaters not exceed 0.005 gr/ dscf. U. S. Pipe believes that this proposed limitation is untenable in that it results in minimal reductions of HAP emissions at a prohibitive cost. U. S. Pipe believes that the agency has the authority, valid reasoning, and the duty of responsible regulation to reconsider this proposed requirement.

Specifically, many melting furnaces are currently controlled by the use of wet scrubbers that are approximately 97.8% effective at removing PM from the exhaust stream. However, some furnaces utilize fabric filters that are approximately 99.8% effective. Therefore, the agency selected the use of fabric filters as the MACT Floor technology. Although this is consistent with a strict reading of § 112( d) of the CAA, it results in an excessive burden to attain a trivial gain.

§ 63.7690( a)( 2)   PM Emissions Limitations   New Furnaces 9 The proposed rules, at § 63.7690( a)( 2), would require that PM emissions from metal melting furnaces and scrap preheaters at a new metal casting ( i. e., metal melting) department not exceed 0.001 gr/ dscf.

U. S. Pipe believes that this proposed limitation does not properly account " for the variability inherent in process operations and control device performance." When determining the proposed PM emissions limitation for new furnaces and cupolas, there is no indication that any statistical method or other means was utilized to account " for the variability inherent in process operations and control device performance" for these new sources. Rather, it appears that the agency adopted this MACT floor based on testing conducted at a limited number of sites that utilize the MACT technology. U. S. Pipe believes that any emission standard derived from a database limited in this manner cannot meet the threshold of considering and accounting for the variability inherent in furnace operations throughout the industry, nor the variability expected in the control device's performance over these operating conditions.

A properly developed emission standard must consider the " worst foreseeable circumstances faced by any unit in a given source category." Therefore, U. S. Pipe believes that the agency cannot determine the new source MACT floor by solely relying upon the emissions tests of those new sources that utilize the MACT technology, unless those tests were performed under conditions that reflect the worst foreseeable in the industry ( i. e., worst scrap, worst coke, etc.).

§ 63.7690( a)( 3)   PM Emissions Limitations   Existing Pouring Stations The proposed rules, at § 63.7690( a)( 3), would require that PM emissions from existing pouring stations not exceed 0.010 gr/ dscf. The very low HAP emissions from permanent mold pipe making, as discussed elsewhere in this document, make the requirement to install capture and control equipment technologically and economically infeasible.

§ 63.7690( a)( 5)   CO Emissions Limitations   Cupolas The proposed rules, at § 63.7690( a)( 5), would require that carbon monoxide ( CO) emissions from new and existing cupolas not exceed 200 parts per million by volume ( ppmv). In the preamble, EPA states " Cupola afterburners are typically operated at an ignition temperature of 1300 0 F or higher to combust the CO in the cupola exhaust stream  Given that thermal destruction of most organic compounds occurs at 1200 0 F or lower, we believe that organic HAP are effectively controlled by an afterburner " EPA, however, goes on to use source compliance test data to propose a CO emission limit of 200 ppmv for existing and new cupola's, but proposes to require compliance to be demonstrated on a 3 hour average using CEM's.

First, U. S. Pipe contends that, based upon our preamble discussion, this limitation was derived from an illegitimate state standard. Therefore, U. S. Pipe recommends that this limitation be replaced with a requirement that an afterburner meeting specified combustion parameters be maintained. Second, as discussed in the preamble, the results of testing for organic HAPs indicate only " very low and highly variable" concentrations of organic HAPs from these operations. Third, there is one U. S. Pipe foundry that presently is equipped with a CEM for CO, and historical data has firmly established that a 3 hour average of 200 ppmv cannot be achieved. In fact, our permit limit is 550 ppmv averaged over a 10 hour period ( normally an operating day).

Although, in normal operation, iron is tapped continually, the iron melting process is far from steady state. Every charge introduced creates turbulence and can momentarily extinguish any combustion. It is not unusual for a CO CEM to show spikes of 5000 ppmv and spikes up to 10,000 ppmv do occur. One of our trade association member foundries has a CO CEM and has recently spent approximately two ( 2) million dollars to upgrade its afterburner performance. Even after this upgrade, it cannot achieve 200 ppmv.

Based on this information and the experience of U. S. Pipe, it is apparent that stack test data cannot and should not be used to establish a limit using CEMs. Further, it should be evident that an emission limit of 200 ppmv cannot be achieved in practice, nor based on EPA's own statements, is such a limit necessary to reduce organic HAP emissions from a cupola. U. S. Pipe recommends that the HAP control for cupola/ afterburner emissions be based on the afterburner being designed for a minimum of 0.3 seconds retention at 1300 0 F or higher. 10 § 63.7690( a)( 8), ( b)( 5)   TEA Emissions Limitations   Cold Box Mold and Core Making Lines The proposed rules, at § 63.7690( a)( 8), would require that triethylamine emissions from cold box mold and core making lines be reduced to a level that does not exceed 1 ppmv using wet acid scrubbers maintaining scrubbing liquid 3 hour average flow rate above a minimum flow rate established during performance testing and by maintaining a 3 hour average pH below a maximum pH established during performance testing. Nowhere in the preamble, does it state the flow rate or pH of the wet acid scrubbers that were evaluated for MACT. Normally these scrubbers are operated to provide a solution that is recyclable and has a pH of 2.5 to 4.5. Flow rates are specified by the manufacturer of the scrubber, along with pollutant removal efficiencies. Discussions with industry professionals, leads U. S. Pipe to believe that the wet acid scrubbers that were evaluated for MACT were running with a fresh acid solution at a pH lower than 2.0. Triethylamine recyclers will not accept material with a pH less than 2.0, since it is considered " hazardous waste" by definition. If the foundry industry must operate wet acid scrubbers at a pH of 2.0 or less to achieve compliance, the recycle industry will be eliminated, more natural resources will be used and the acid solution will have to be disposed of as a hazardous waste creating another burden on the environment. Recycling costs range from $ 1.85 to $ 2.10 per gallon, depending on transportation costs. Disposal costs for waste scrubber solution run from $ 1.00 to $ 3.00 per gallon. Contrary to disposal of waste scrubber solution, recycling is considered pollution prevention.

The proposed standard states that EPA Method 18 will be used for compliance testing of the wet acid scrubbers. The detection limit of EPA Method 18, 1 ppmv, has been selected as the compliance limit for triethylamine emitted from wet acid scrubbers. In the preamble the agency states, " We have reliable performance test data for seven acid wet scrubbers at six foundries". None of the performance test data listed was done using EPA Method 18, other test methods were listed but not the required method. The data is assumed to be reliable, but in fact is not comparable to EPA Method 18. This comparison is like comparing " apples to oranges". Since reliable performance data using EPA Method 18 does not exist, meeting a 1 ppmv compliance limit using EPA Method 18 has not been proven to be technically feasible. Also, setting a compliance limit at the detection limit of EPA Method 18 does not take into account the variability of the test at these low levels. Additionally, the cost of testing triethylamine emissions using Method 18 ranges from $ 7,000 to $ 8,000 for a single test. These costs would be reduced if the foundry industry could use alternate analytical test methods as was done by the EPA to develop the wet acid scrubber MACT.

I nlet loading is another factor that is brushed over in the preamble. No inlet loadings are listed for the outlet emissions, which were below detection limits. Outlet emissions will be directly affected by inlet loading. Manufacturers of wet acid scrubbers specify percent removal efficiency rather than a specific pollutant concentration due to this relationship.

I n the preamble, the agency states " establishment of a standard of 1 ppmv triethylamine emission will result in triethylamine emission reduction of 146 tons per year from two foundries that do not presently control emissions". Why should the whole foundry industry carry the burden of meeting the 1ppmv triethylamine emission limit for two foundries, which have no triethylamine emission control?

U. S. Pipe proposes that wet acid scrubber flow rates be maintained within the manufacturers specifications, wet acid scrubber solution pH be maintained within the limits set for the purpose of recycling, and the performance of all triethylamine removal systems be measured as percent removal specified by the manufacturer rather than a specific triethylamine concentration.

§ 63.7690( b)( 1)   Capture and Ventilation Requirements The proposed rules, at § 63.7690( b)( 1), would require that a capture and ventilation system that maintains a face velocity of 200 feet per minute be maintained at each emissions source subject to an emissions limit. U. S. Pipe believes that it is arbitrary and capricious to impose a single uniform standard on emission sources that are significantly diverse. In addition, we believe that such a requirement has no underlying MACT floor determination, may be an entirely unnecessary burden for some sources, fails to consider the ancillary energy and environmental impacts, and fails to account for variable operating conditions. 11 Further, the preamble fails to justify the establishment of a capture and ventilation system " that maintains a face velocity of at least 200 feet per minute" through a MACT floor determination. The preamble fails to cite any study or information collection request that evaluates and justifies the establishment of such a requirement.

I n addition, proposing such a requirement for " each emission source subject to an emissions limit" represents an unnecessary burden for some operations. Apart from this proposed requirement, foundries utilizing clean, low emitting processes, may have no valid reason to vent emissions from these operations. U. S. Pipe believes that when processes are operated in a manner that limits worker exposure, at or below the standards established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA), then there exists no basis for requiring stricter capture and ventilation standards.

U. S. Pipe also believes that the agency has also failed to consider the additional environmental and energy cost that would be incurred as a result of this requirement. Specifically, when in plant air is exhausted from the facility it must be replaced. This make up air will require additional ducting, mechanical air supply systems, and possible conditioning ( i. e., heating or cooling) prior to introduction into the facility. The operation of these systems can significantly increase a facility's energy requirements and result in increased emissions attributable to heating or cooling the make up air.

Therefore, U. S. Pipe recommends that this provision be modified as follows:

"( 1) For each emissions source subject to an emissions limit under paragraph ( a), you must capture and vent emissions through a capture system that maintains a face velocity of at least 200 feet per minute consistent with good engineering practices. You must operate each capture system at or above the lowest value or settings established as operating limits in consistent with your operation and maintenance plan."

§ 63.7700( a)  Work Practice Standards   Selection and Inspection of Scrap The proposed rule, at § 63.7700( a), would require that foundries prepare and operate according to a written plan for the selection and inspection of the scrap materials that are melted. U. S. Pipe believes that the specific requirements of this provision exceed a properly established MACT floor and do not properly acknowledge the realities of operating a foundry. The proposed regulation should be modified to recognize: 1) that no foundry currently operates such an extensive inspection and selection program; 2) that many foundries process large amounts of scrap metal; and 3) that foundries are often the " last resort" for the recycling of oily or impure scrap metals and some foundry operations ( e. g., cupolas) are both designed for, and capable of, handling these materials.

The proposed rule would require a documented inspection of " all incoming scrap shipments." U. S. Pipe believes that the preamble fails to establish a basis for setting the MACT floor at this level and does not present a beyond the floor analysis to justify this requirement. As noted in the preamble, the majority of foundries do use some type of scrap selection or inspection program to ensure the quality of the scrap metals used, however, U. S. Pipe is aware of no foundry that performs documented inspections of " all" scrap shipments for reducing emissions. In fact, the preamble states that in response to EPA's inquiry on this matter " many responses were general in nature, such as " use clean scrap," " follow scrap specification," or " inspect scrap."" Therefore, U. S. Pipe does not believe that a MACT floor has been properly established to require the inspection of " all incoming scrap." In addition, many foundries receive numerous shipments of large quantities of scrap materials. A requirement to inspect and document each of these shipments would be excessively burdensome and cost prohibitive.

The proposed rule includes restrictions on the scrap materials that would limit the introduction of painted parts and galvanized materials, and a prohibition on the use of oily turnings. U. S. Pipe believes that these restrictions do not recognize that restrictions on the use of painted parts, galvanized materials, and oily turnings may result in these materials no longer being recycled. Although these materials may 12 introduce some contaminants into the process, U. S. Pipe believes that their use in the foundry is preferential to these materials being abandoned or utilized in an unregulated or lesser regulated manner. U. S. Pipe believes that the use of these materials in a regulated, controlled process is their best environmental fate, and that the emissions limitations imposed upon the foundry operations will adequately protect the environment.

Finally, the proposed regulation would also require that the scrap inspections be performed at the " best" vantage point. U. S. Pipe believes that this requirement is nebulous and, hence, compliance may be difficult to ensure. U. S. Pipe recommends this requirement be deleted.

§ 63.7700( b)  Work Practice Standards   Mold Vent Ignition The proposed rule, at § 63.7700( b), requires that foundries " manually ignite the gases from each mold vent that do not ignite automatically."

I t must be clear that this requirement has no meaning where permanent mold casting is the process involved. There is no mold vent associated with the casting of iron pipe since there is no mold sand. The permanent steel mold is open on both ends allowing rapid mixing of oxygen with any organic HAP that may be released during pouring and cooling.

U. S. Pipe also believes that this provision inaccurately assumes that it is reasonable to ensure the ignition of the gases at " each" sand mold vent, and that the " each" sand mold vent will emit an ignitable gas. Sand mold vents, which allow for the escape of gases during the pouring and cooling of a casting, may emit an ignitable gas. However, the regulation should acknowledge that casting molds may have literally hundreds of mold vents, and that some of these mold vents will be located in inaccessible areas ( e. g., over the center of a large casting). In addition, some mold vents may emit such minimal quantities of gaseous byproducts that they may not ignite.

Moreover, the proposed regulation would require that a " pouring, cooling and shakeout line" in an existing foundry comply with this requirement. U. S. Pipe believes that this provision may be misconstrued to require such ignition in the cooling and shakeout areas. In fact, mold vent ignition operations are conducted at or near the " pouring station."

Therefore, U. S. Pipe requests § 63.7700( b) be modified, where appropriate to the casting process, as follows, to require that foundries provide an ignition source at or near the pouring area or pouring station such that mold gases may ignite.

( b) For each pouring, cooling, and shakeout line At or near each pouring station in an existing metal casting department and each pouring area in a new or existing metal casting department, you must manually ignite the gases from each mold vent that do not ignite automatically provide an ignition source such that the mold vent gases may ignite.

§ 63.7700( f)   Work Practice Standards   Mold and Core Making Lines The proposed rule, at § 63.7700( f), requires that mold and core making lines other than furan warm box, phenolic urethane cold box, and phenolic urethane no bake: 1) conduct a study of reduced HAP binder formulations; 2) adopt a reduced HAP binder system or demonstrate that " all" available alternatives are technically or economically infeasible; and 3) conduct a study every five ( 5) years until a reduced HAP system is adopted. U. S. Pipe believes that this proposed standard has no legal basis within the Clean Air Act; presents an unachievable compliance requirement; and presents an excessive burden without providing a beyond the floor economic demonstration.

§ 112( h) of the Clean Air Act outlines the authority of the agency to establish " work practice standards" within a MACT NESHAP. However, in § 112( h)( 2) the use of " work practice standards" is limited to those situations when: ( A) a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants cannot be emitted through a conveyance; or ( B) the application of a measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable. U. S. Pipe believes that neither of these thresholds has been met to allow for this proposed " work practice standard." 13 Further, the basic structure of § 112 of the CAA establishes that the MACT standards are to represent a one time identification and employment of emission control systems that reflect the pollution abatement technologies currently available. The CAA anticipates and provides for any necessary adjustments to a MACT standard via the mechanisms of § 112( f). Nowhere does § 112 provide authority for the agency to mandate a continuing program to reevaluate products or technologies. Therefore, U. S. Pipe believes that the requirement to " conduct a study" every five ( 5) years is improper and must be removed.

I n addition, U. S. Pipe believes that the requirement to demonstrate that " all available alternatives" to a current binder system are infeasible presents an unachievable standard. Since there are an infinite number of potential binder materials and combinations of materials, no regulated source can possibly demonstrate that " all alternatives" have been considered.

The regulation also fails to define the term " reduced HAP binder." Thus, the provision as written would require those facilities that already utilize binders systems that contain extremely low HAP concentrations to continue to evaluate alternatives. Likewise, casting facilities may be subjected to varying interpretations of the term " reduced HAP binder" and subject to potential compliance actions.

Finally, the Casting Emissions Reduction Program ( CERP) has conducted numerous evaluations of binder systems. CERP, of which EPA is a member, reports that HAP emissions testing " costs approximately $ 200,000 to $ 250,000 per binder system ()". These costs will further increase with the need to conduct trial production operations to ensure that product quality is maintained when changing to a replacement binder. Thus, the review of even a limited number of binder systems will result in an excessive cost burden to a foundry operation. U. S. Pipe believes that it is incumbent upon the agency to provide a beyond the floor analysis to demonstrate that this proposed requirement considers the cost of achieving any potential reductions.

§ 63.7720( b)   General Compliance Requirements These requirements are adequately addressed through the existing Title V Major Source Operating Permit and the Synthetic Minor Operating Permit conditions. Any additional requirements would be overly burdensome and unnecessary.

§ 63.7730   Initial Compliance Requirements § 63.7732( b)  Determining Compliance with the Emissions Limitation for Particulate Matter The proposed rule, at § 63.7731( b), requires the use of Method 5, 5B, 5D, 5F, or 5I to determine compliance with the emission limitations for particulate matter ( PM). U. S. Pipe requests that this provision be clarified to indicate that compliance with the PM standard is to be determined based on the " front half" catch and that any " back half" condensable matter is excluded from the determination.

The preamble indicates ( page 78286) that the PM emission standards were developed based on data that included only the " front half" catch. Therefore, it is appropriate that compliance with these limitations also be determined based on the same methodology. U. S. Pipe is concerned that, in the future, persons may misinterpret the compliance determination requirement to include the " back half" PM catch, thus increasing the stringency of the emission limitations. Since the court 4 has held that changing a sampling method can change the stringency of a limitation, U. S. Pipe believes it is appropriate that the regulation be amended to ensure proper understanding.

§ 63.7732( c)   Determining Compliance with the Emissions Limit for Carbon Monoxide Based on our previous comments on the CO limit for cupolas, it is proposed that this section be revised to require source testing ( every five years) and not CEMs.

4 Appalachian Power Company v. EPA, 341 US App DC 46; 208 f. 3d 1015, decided April 14, 2000. " We have recognized before that changing the method of measuring compliance with an emission limitation can affect the stringency of the limitation itself. Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 158 US App DC 308, 486 F. 2d 375, 396 97 ( DC 1973), discussed in Clean Air Implementation Project v. EPA, 105 F. 3d at 1203." 14 § 63.7734( 5)   Demonstrating Initial Compliance with Emission Limitations Based on our previous comments on the CO limit for cupolas, it is proposed that this section be revised to address source testing ( every five years) and not CEMs.

§ 63.7740   Monitoring Requirements U. S. PIPE requests that EPA take a pragmatic approach in establishing monitoring requirements for this proposed rule taking into consideration cost, the relative benefit of the monitoring proposed and consistency with monitoring requirements already established by existing rules and operating permit conditions.

As currently proposed, the monitoring provisions require the installation, operation and maintenance of a substantial number of continuous monitoring systems to either directly measure emissions from a particular process ( CEMS) or to monitor relevant operating parameters to ensure emission control systems are operating at optimal performance levels ( CPMS). While U. S. Pipe recognizes that these systems are technically feasible, we believe the use of CEMS and CPMS is cost prohibitive. Furthermore, U. S. Pipe believes these monitoring systems will provide minimal compliance assurance beyond other already available and less costly monitoring methods.

CEMS for CO and VOC Emissions § 63.7740( f) requires the installation and operation of carbon monoxide CEMS for all cupolas at affected sources. Similarly, § 63.7740( g) requires the installation and operation of VOC CEMS for scrap preheaters and new pouring, cooling and shakeout lines. The proposed rule further requires that periodic performance testing be performed to demonstrate continuous compliance with proposed emission limitations.

U. S. Pipe recognizes EPA's desire that MACT standards contain continuous compliance determination methods. However, in other MACT standards EPA has not required the use of CEMS for similar emission units and emission control systems due to their substantial cost and minimal benefit over other effective monitoring methods ( see discussion on Monitoring in the preamble to 40 CFR 63 Subpart RRR, NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production, FR Vol. 64, No. 28, p. 6982). U. S. Pipe requests that EPA, consistent with its decision to not require CEMS for affected sources under the Secondary Aluminum Production MACT Standard, eliminate the CEMS requirement in this proposed rule.

EPA has stated that MACT standards contain two levels of compliance assurance. First, affected sources must perform " stack" tests to demonstrate that the emission unit subject to an emission limitation is capable of achieving compliance. Second, affected sources must perform some level of ongoing monitoring to assure that compliance continues to be achieved. This on going monitoring may include direct measurement of HAPs or a HAPs surrogate or it may involve monitoring of the process or control device to ensure it is operating properly. In this instance, an assurance of compliance exists because the source has previously shown by performance testing that, when operated properly, the emission unit will achieve required emission levels and the ongoing process or control device monitoring ensures that the equipment is operating properly. As EPA has cited within the preamble of the proposed rule, that the destruction of organic HAPs emitted by the operation of cupolas, scrap preheaters and new PCS lines, is effectively achieved by thermal oxidation at or below a temperature of 1200 F. EPA also correctly states that cupola afterburners are typically operated at or above a temperature of 1300 F in order to combust CO in the cupola exhaust stream. EPA goes on to state "  we believe that organic HAP are effectively controlled by an afterburner that effectively oxidizes CO," ( see FR, Vol. 67, No. 246, p. 78284). Similarly, the use of thermal oxidizers to control VOC emission levels from scrap preheaters and new PCS lines, if operated at temperature levels in excess of 1200 F, would also be expected to effectively control organic HAP. U. S. Pipe believes that continuous monitoring of afterburner temperature, in combination with periodic performance testing and the development and implementation of O, M & M plans for these control devices ( as required elsewhere in the proposed rule) represents an effective alternative to CEMS. This monitoring strategy is also consistent with existing regulatory and permit requirements for many affected sources and will minimize the potential for redundant or conflicting monitoring requirements. 15 Furthermore, as discussed earlier in these comments, EPA has failed to provide sufficient data that maintaining a CO concentration of 200 ppmv is an effective strategy for assuring the destruction of organic HAP, nor has it demonstrated that the use of CEMS is technically feasible for the extreme conditions associated with cupola and PCS operation.

§ 63.7762   What definitions apply to this subpart?

We propose to add the following definition for " Afterburner". " Afterburner means a vessel, either stand alone or in the outlet stack of an iron melting cupola, designed to thermally oxidize carbon monoxide, generated during the melting process, to carbon dioxide and water by mixing air and cupola off gas containing 10 20% carbon monoxide during normal melting operation. Burners, fired by a secondary fuel ( e. g. fuel oil or natural gas), are used during initial startup and, during normal cupola operation, to maintain operating temperatures, usually about 1300 º F.

The proposed rule defines ` capture system' to mean a system that captures gases and fumes and " then convey( s) the captured gases to a control device." U. S. Pipe believes that this definition should be revised to remove the supposition that all captured emissions must be conveyed to a control device. Some emission sources may be vented to outside ( or inside) the facility without the need for a control device. Specifically, some foundry emission sources may be capable of attaining emission standards due to process changes or material substitutions ( e. g., the use of low HAP binders). U. S. Pipe believes that this revision properly defines the purpose of a ` capture system' without assuming the ultimate fate of the gases and fumes. Therefore, we recommend that this definition be revised as follows:

" Capture system means the collection of components used to capture gases and fumes released from one or more emissions points and then convey the captured gas stream to a control device away from the emission source. A capture system may include, but is not limited to, the following components as applicable to a given capture system design: duct intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork, dampers, manifolds, plenums, and fans."

U. S. Pipe is aware that trade groups, with which we have affiliation, specifically the American Foundry Society ( AFS) and The Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association ( DIPRA), are also submitting comments on these proposed regulations. Rather than repeat these comments herein, U. S. Pipe is incorporating by reference all AFS and DIPRA comments.

I n summary, U. S. Pipe requests that the agency consider these comments in developing the final regulations for the Iron and Steel Foundry NESHAP. U. S. Pipe offers our continued support in this rule development and will provide any clarification that is needed in assisting agency personnel in understanding the metal casting industry. In addition, U. S. Pipe again invites the relevant members of EPA staff involved with the development of this standard to tour several foundry operations in order to better understand the concerns of U. S. Pipe and its members.

Sincerely,

John F. Pleasant Director of Environmental Services Attachments: 16 1. Sturgis Foundry Monovent Baghouse Test 2. Letter to A. Vervaert, January 29, 2001, esp. Attachment G " A Case for Subcategorization of Permanent Mold Pipe Foundries"


     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)
FFDCA §408(p) Order/FIFRA §(3)(c)(2)(B) Data Call-In (DCI)
                                Clear Form Data
                           OMB Control No.
2070-TBD
  EDSP Tier 2 Testing, Initial Response Form for Individual Order Recipients
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average one hour per response. Send comments regarding the burden estimate to: Director, Collection Strategies Division (2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460. Do not send the completed form to this address  -  follow the submission instructions in the order/DCI and Part 4 below.
Part 1
Recipient Information: (from the order/DCI and completed by the EPA)

A. Order/DCI #:
B. Date Issued:
C. Initial Response Due:
1.1. Order/DCI Info:

1.2. Company Name:

1.3. Address:

1.4. Contact Person:

A. Chemical #:
B. Chemical Name:
C. Company Number(s):
1.5. Chemical Info:

Part 2
Recipient's Initial Response: (Please check the box next to your preferred response (2.1  -  2.7).  Refer to the order/DCI for more information about response options, as well as detailed instructions on how to comply with the order/DCI.)

                                                                           2.1.

I will generate new data or am citing/submitting existing data. For each required test () below, check the appropriate box (A, B, or C) and follow the order/DCI instructions to attach the data and/or required documentation.

A. I will generate new data.

B. I am citing/submitting existing data and/or other scientifically relevant information.

C. I am entering (or offering to enter) into an agreement to form a Consortium/Task Force to respond to the order/DCI.
The Consortium/Task Force must provide a separate initial response within 150 calendar days from issuance of the order/DCI. (See EDSP Tier 2 Testing, Initial Response Form for Consortia/Task Forces at http://www.epa.gov/endo/.)
                                                                       Required
Test
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                               Documentation is
                                   Attached

OCSPP Guideline 890.2100, Japanese Quail Two-Generation Toxicity

OCSPP Guideline 890.2200, Medaka Extended One-Generation Reproduction

OCSPP Guideline 890.2300, Larval Amphibian Growth and Development

OCSPP Guideline 870.3800, Reproduction and Fertility Effects*

*[OECD TG 416 (Two-Generation Reproduction Toxicity Study) or
OECD TG 443 (Extended One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study) are acceptable alternatives to OCSPP Guideline 870.3800]

                                      2.2

I am not subject to the order/DCI.

These Response Options Apply Only to Registered Pesticides:
                                                                            2.3
I intend to voluntarily cancel the pesticide registration(s).

                                                                            2.4
I intend to reformulate the product(s) to exclude this chemical from the formulation.

                                                                            2.5
I am claiming a formulator's exemption.

These Response Options Apply Only to Pesticide Inert Ingredients (aka, Inerts):
                                                                            2.6
I have/am in the process of discontinuing the manufacture/import of this chemical.

                                                                            2.7
I do not and will not sell my chemical for use as an inert ingredient to the pesticide market.

Part 3
3.1. Certification:
I certify that the statements made on this form and all attachments are true, accurate and complete. I acknowledge that any knowingly false or misleading statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment or both under applicable law.
                                                                            3.2
Company's Authorized Representative
3.3 Date
                                                                     Signature:

                                                              Name & Title:

3.4 Telephone Number
                                                                 Email Address:

Part 4
Detailed submission instructions can be found on the EPA's EDSP Internet homepage at http://www.epa.gov/endo.
EPA Form No. 6300-07 (Draft, June 2015)


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39014-39016]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16523]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9172-4]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Consent Decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a
proposed consent decree, to address a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin:
Sierra Club v. Jackson, No. 10-cv-0127 (W.D. Wis.). Plaintiff filed a
deadline suit to compel the Administrator to respond to an
administrative petition seeking EPA's objection to a CAA Title V
operating permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources to the Edgewater Generating Station, in Sheboygan County,
Wisconsin. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA has
agreed to respond to the petition by August 10, 2010, or within 20 days
after the entry date of this Consent Decree, whichever is later.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by August 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2010-0567, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailed to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Kataoka, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    This proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit alleging that
the Administrator failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty to grant or
deny, within 60 days of submission, an administrative petition to
object to a CAA Title V permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources to the Edgewater Generating Station, in Sheboygan
County, Wisconsin. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA
has agreed to respond to the petition by August 10, 2010, or within 20
days after the entry date of the Consent Decree, whichever is later. In
addition, the proposed consent decree states that, within 15 business
days following signature, EPA shall deliver notice of such action to
the Office of the Federal Register for prompt publication and, if EPA's
response contains an objection in whole or in part, transmit the signed
response to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The proposed
consent decree sets the attorneys' fees at $3,223.38, and states that,
after EPA fulfills its obligations under the decree, the case shall be
dismissed with prejudice.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be
withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2010-0567) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the http://www.regulations.gov
to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents
in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material,
including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only
in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments
to EPA

electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: June 30, 2010.
Patricia Embrey,
Acting Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-16523 Filed 7-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31842-31843]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10608]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0042]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Implantable
Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs)

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of an application from one individual
for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against operation of a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) by persons with a current clinical diagnosis of
myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, coronary insufficiency,
thrombosis, or any other cardiovascular disease of a variety known to
be accompanied by syncope (transient loss of consciousness), dyspnea
(shortness of breath), collapse, or congestive heart failure. If
granted, the exemption would enable this individual with an ICD to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0042 using any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/,
insert the docket number (FMCSA-2023-0042) in the keyword box and click
``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose
the first notice listed, and click on the ``Comment'' button. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.

     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0042), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2023-0042. Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-
Older),'' choose the first notice listed, click the ``Comment'' button,
and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit.
    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.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number (FMCSA-2023-0042) in the keyword box and click ``Search.'' Next,
sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first notice
listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations
on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments
from the public on the exemption requests. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov. As described in the system of records
notice DOT/ALL 14 (Federal Docket Management System), which can be
reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices, the comments are searchable by the name of
the submitter.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statutes also allow the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The one individual listed in this notice has requested an exemption
from Sec.  391.41(b)(4). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the
qualifications of the applicant to determine whether granting the
exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by
statute.
    The physical qualification standard found in Sec.  391.41(b)(4)
states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that
person has no current clinical diagnosis of myocardial infarction,
angina pectoris, coronary insufficiency, thrombosis, or any other
cardiovascular disease of a variety known to be accompanied by syncope,
dyspnea, collapse, or congestive cardiac failure.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. The advisory criteria states that ICDs are
disqualifying due to risk of syncope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in 49 CFR part 391, Appendix A
to Part 391--Medical Advisory Criteria, Section D. Cardiovascular:
Sec.  391.41(b)(4), paragraph 4, which is available on the internet
at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Nicholas Steffler

    Nicholas Steffler is a class B driver's license holder in North
Carolina. An October 10, 2022, letter from Nicholas Steffler's
cardiologist reports that their ICD was prophylactically implanted on
June 18, 2018, because of a positive family history of premature sudden
death. Nicholas Steffler's cardiologist also reports no ICD shock
history or syncopal episodes and that annual stress tests and other
diagnostic imaging remain unchanged from prior evaluations.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated under the DATES
section of the notice.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-10608 Filed 5-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12514-12516]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05766]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0145; FRL-9975-55-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans, Oklahoma

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Oklahoma
submitted by the State of Oklahoma designee with a letter dated
February 14, 2017. The submittal covers updates to the Oklahoma SIP, as
contained in annual SIP updates for 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, and
incorporates the latest changes to the EPA regulations. The overall
intended outcome of this action is to make the approved Oklahoma SIP
consistent with current Federal and State requirements. This action is
being taken in accordance with the federal Clean Air Act (the Act)
March 22, 2018.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2017-0145, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Mr. Alan Shar, (214) 665-
6691, [email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar (6MM-AA), (214) 665-
6691, [email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Mr. Alan Shar.

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

I. Background

    On November 3, 2015 (80 FR 67647), the EPA finalized, among other
things, its approval of revisions to Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC)
Title 252 Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), Chapter 100 Air
Pollution Control (OAC:252:100), Subchapter 17 Incinerators, Subchapter
25 Visible Emissions and Particulates, Appendix E Primary Ambient Air
Quality Standards, and Appendix F Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
    The submittal dated February 14, 2017 (February 14, 2017 Submittal,
or Submittal) which is the subject of this proposed action includes
revisions to Subchapters 2 Incorporation by Reference, 5 Registration,
Emission Inventory and Annual Operating Fees, 13 Open Burning, 17
Incinerators, 25 Visible Emissions and Particulates, 31 Control of
Emission of Sulfur Compounds, Appendix E Primary Ambient Air Quality
Standards, Appendix F Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, and
Appendix Q Incorporation by Reference of OAC:252:100. The Submittal
covers the annual updates for the years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016.
    The criteria used to evaluate these SIP revisions are found
primarily in section 110 of the Act. Section 110(l) requires that a SIP
revision submitted to the EPA be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing and also requires that the EPA not approve a SIP
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning

attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. See the Technical Support Document (TSD)
prepared in conjunction with this action for more information.

II. Evaluation

    Subchapters 2, 5, and Appendix Q of the Submittal are air permit-
related provisions of the Oklahoma SIP, and we are not acting upon
these provisions in this rulemaking action. The EPA plans to act on
these provisions separately in a future rulemaking action.
    In this action, we are proposing to approve revisions to OAC
252:100, Subchapters 13, 17, 25, 31, Appendix E, and Appendix F, as
contained in the Submittal. Appendices E and F adopt primary and
secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), respectively.
    OAC 252:100, Subchapter 13 imposes requirements for controlling
open burning of refuse and other combustible materials. It defines
``air curtain incinerator'' or ``air curtain destructor'' as an
incineration unit that operates by forcefully projecting a curtain of
air across an open, integrated combustion chamber (fire box) or open
pit or trench (trench burner) in which combustion occurs.
    The Subchapter 13 revisions limit allowed open burning when an
Ozone or PM Watch has been declared for the day of the burn in an area.
This provision is intended to assist with attaining and maintaining the
Ozone and PM NAAQS. Section OAC 252:100-13-8 concerns the use of air
curtain incinerators and prohibits the owner or operator of an air
curtain incinerator from accepting to burn any material owned by other
persons and transporting any material to the property where the air
curtain incinerator is located unless the material is 100 percent wood
waste, 100 percent clean lumber, or 100 percent mixture of wood waste
and clean lumber. This provision makes the open burning activities more
stringent and assists with compliance determinations. Revisions to OAC
252:100-13-8 also mandate compliance with applicable federal
incineration requirements of 40 CFR part 60. See the TSD prepared in
conjunction with this rulemaking action for more information.
    Since the record indicates that the submitted revisions to
Subchapter 13 make applicability determinations clearer and improves
compliance, we find that the Oklahoma SIP has not been relaxed and that
the requirements of section 110(l) of the Act have been satisfied. See
the TSD in the docket for this action. Therefore, we are proposing to
approve the submitted revisions to Subchapter 13 into the Oklahoma SIP.
    OAC 252:100, Subchapter 17 specifies design and operating
requirements and establishes emission limitations for incinerators and
municipal waste combustors. Submitted revisions to OAC 252:100-17, Part
3 General Purpose Incinerators and Part 9 Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units adjust enforceable requirements
and compliance dates consistent with revisions to federal requirements
dated February 7, 2013 (78 FR 9112). More specifically, the submitted
revisions incorporate changes to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD Emissions
Guidelines and Compliance Times for Commercial and Industrial Solid
Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units, Model Rule, Sections 60.2575 through
60.2875, including Tables 1 through 9. The State has adopted federal
requirements for incinerators through an Incorporation By Reference
(IBR) mechanism. See 64 FR 57392, and 70 FR 73595. The proposed
revisions will render Subchapter 17 consistent with federal
requirements and make the SIP more stringent. See the TSD for more
information. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted
revisions to Subchapter 17 into the Oklahoma SIP.
    OAC 252:100, Subchapter 25 concerns visible emissions and
particulates and its purpose is to control visible emissions and
particulate matter from the operation of specified air contaminant
sources. More specifically, submitted revisions to OAC 252:100-25-5
require owners or operators of listed stationary sources install,
calibrate, operate, and maintain all monitoring equipment for
continuously monitoring opacity; it also requires compliance with 40
CFR part 60, Appendix B, and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P. The proposed
revisions will render Subchapter 25 consistent with federal
requirements and make the SIP more stringent. See the TSD for more
information. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted
revisions to Subchapter 25 into Oklahoma SIP.
    ODEQ revised OAC 252:100, Subchapter 31 in 2002, 2003 (twice),
2012, and 2013. As a part of our review of the February 14, 2017
Submittal, each one of these five revisions has been evaluated in the
TSD associated with this action.
    In particular, Subchapter 252:100:31 concerns control of emission
of sulfur compounds and its purpose is control emissions of sulfur
compounds from stationary sources. Revisions to 252:100:31-25(3) state
that required SO2 emissions monitoring systems must comply
with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, and 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix P. As a result, the proposed revisions will be consistent with
federal requirements and make the SIP more stringent. In addition, by
replacing State's outdated 24-hour and annual SO2 standards
with the more stringent up-to-date short term federal 2010 1-Hour
SO2 standard (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010), Subchapter 31
will provide for even better protection of public health and
environment and make the SIP more stringent. See the TSD for more
information. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted
revisions to Subchapter 31 into the Oklahoma SIP.
    OAC 252:100, Appendix E concerns the primary NAAQS set forth to
provide public health protection, including protecting the health of
``sensitive'' populations such as asthmatics, children, and the
elderly. The submitted revision to Appendix E adopts the primary 2015
8-Hour ozone NAAQS and is consistent with 40 CFR 50.19, making the SIP
more stringent. Also, see https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted
revisions to OAC 252:100, Appendix E into the Oklahoma SIP. See the TSD
for more information.
    OAC 252:100, Appendix F concerns the secondary NAAQS set forth to
provide public welfare protection, including protection against
decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and
buildings. The submitted revision to Appendix F concerns the secondary
2015 8-Hour ozone NAAQS and is consistent with 40 CFR 50.19, making the
SIP more stringent. Also, see https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the
submitted revisions to OAC 252:100, Appendix F into the Oklahoma SIP.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve revisions to OAC 252:100, Subchapters
13, 17, 25, 31, Appendix E, and Appendix F, as submitted to us by a
letter dated February 14, 2017 (Submittal). The Submittal covers
Oklahoma's updates for the years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. We are
proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with Section 110 of
the Act.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text

that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to Oklahoma's regulations, as described in the
Proposed Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the 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 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 16, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018-05766 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34652-34653]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15607]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR17-54-000.
    Applicants: B&W Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: Compliance Tariff
Filing to be effective 7/17/2017; Filing Type: 990.
    Filed Date: 7/17/17.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>68.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-898-000.
    Applicants: Blue Lake Gas Storage Company.
    Description: Petition for Approval of Settlement Agreement of Blue
Lakes Gas Storage Company.
    Filed Date: 07/12/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170712-5202.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 24, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-846-000.
    Applicants: Cargill, Incorporated, Macquarie Energy LLC.
    Description: Supplement to Temporary Waiver Request of Cargill,
Incorporated, et al.
    Filed Date: 07/18/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170718-5120.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 25, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-903-000.

    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Non-Conforming Negotiated Rate Agreement (AESC
#213006-TF1CIG) to be effective 9/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 07/18/2017.
    Accession Number: 20170718-5061.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 31, 2017.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 19, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15607 Filed 7-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P