[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 91242-91245]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30281]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-24210; FMCSA-2010-0162; FMCSA-2012-0162; FMCSA-
2012-0163; FMCSA-2014-0018]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions of 125
individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) in interstate commerce. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt
individuals from this rule if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these CMV drivers.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates

stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before
January 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. FMCSA-2006-24210; FMCSA-
2010-0162; FMCSA-2012-0162; FMCSA-2012-0163; FMCSA-2014-0018, using any
of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008, (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 2-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 125 individuals listed
in this notice have recently become eligible for a renewed exemption
from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. The drivers remain in good
standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical
monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-
year exemption period.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 125 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. These 125 drivers
remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required
medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-
year exemption period. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to extend each
exemption for a renewable two-year period. Each individual is
identified according to the renewal date.
    The exemptions are renewed subject to the following conditions: (1)
That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed
by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a
comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports
within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe
hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage
diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse
event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an
episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual submit an annual
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) that each individual
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her
driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must
also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to
a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. The following groups of
drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of August and are
discussed below.
    As of August 6, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 10 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. (77 FR 36333; 77 FR
46791):

Bruce R. Bennett (MN)
Stephen W. Best (PA)
Steven D. Hancock (IN)
Michael A. Hendrickson (OR)
James B. Hills (KS)
Charles Keegan, Jr. (NJ)
Londell W. Luther (MD)
Darrell L. Meadows (TX)
Allyn E. Smith (SD)
Jason R. Zeorian (NE)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0162. Their
exemptions are effective as of August 6, 2016 and will expire on August
6, 2018.
    As of August 8, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 26 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. (71 FR 32177; 71 FR
45097):

Scott R. Anderson (WI)
Robert R. Chase (NE)
Todd A. Dean (WV)
Dale R. Gansz (IL)
Donald W. Havourd, Sr. (CT)
Jeffrey M. King (OR)
Milton A. Klise (OH)
Jeffrey S. Knight (WA)
Edward V. Kruse (IA)
Lee P. Lembke (WI)
Dominick T. Mastroni (KS)
Ronald S. Mavilla (PA)
Derril W. Nunnally (GA)
Robert L. Pfugler, Jr. (PA)
Ronald B. Purdum (IL)
Wilbert C. Rasely, Jr. (PA)
Ron R. Rawson (AZ)
Duance C. Rieger (ND)
Gregory A. Rigg (MI)

Vernon L. Small (CO)
Walter D. Stowman (NJ)
Antonino S. Vita (NY)
Henry B. Walker-Waltz (OR)
Arthur C. Webber (PA)
Scott A. Wertz (ND)
Danny R. Wood (MO)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2006-24210. Their
exemptions are effective as of August 8, 2016, and will expire on
August 8, 2018.
    As of August 17, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. (75 FR 36775; 75 FR
50797):

Gary L. Alexander (MO)
Daniel E. Bergstresser (NY)
Stephen F. Clendenin (NY)
Donald P. Dean (MI)
Pradip B. Desai (PA)
Howard M. Galton (IL)
Steve Gumienny (CA)
Brian M. Katayama (CA)
Hubert S. Paxton (KY)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0162. Their
exemptions are effective as of August 17, 2016, and will expire on
August 17, 2018.
    As of August 19, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 67 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. (79 FR 41723; 79 FR
56105):

Charles Ackerman Jr. (NJ)
William J. Applebee (WI)
Benjamin L. Baxter (MI)
Stephen M. Berggren (MN)
Robert A. Boyle (ID)
Patrick J. Burns (MN)
Robert L. Caudill (OH)
Charles R. Cran (WI)
John W. Crook Jr. (IA)
Kevin W. Elder (NC)
Michael J. Eldridge, Sr. (IA)
Johnathon C. Ely (IN)
Kevin D. Erickson (WI)
Joby E. Foshee, IV (MS)
Lawrence H. Fox (NH)
Troy C. Frank (NE)
Robert T. Frankfurter (CO)
Dale A. Godejohn (ND)
Robert R. Gonzales (CA)
Norman D. Groves (MO)
Kenneth F. Gwaltney (IN)
Mathew R. Hale (KS)
Donald K. Hamilton (FL)
John L. Holtzclaw (MO)
Christopher H. Horn (NH)
Jared E. Hubbard (TX)
Roger C. Hulce (VT)
Kip J. Kauffman (WI)
Christopher J. Kittoe (WI)
Joshua L. Kroetch (MN)
Wesley S. Langham (IL)
Andrew K. Lofton (AL)
Salvador Lopez (AZ)
Joseph M. Macias (NM)
Robert J. Marino (NJ)
David J. McCoy (UT)
William E. Medlin (MN)
Anthony J. Miller (MN)
Carlos A. Napoles, Jr. (NJ)
Kathryn J. Nelms (KS)
Antonio C. Oliveira (PA)
Christopher P. Overton (IL)
Ronald E. Patrick (IN)
Stephen J. Pelton (PA)
Bryant S. Perry (NC)
Kenneth R. Perschon (IL)
Joseph R. Polhamus (LA)
Brian K. Rajkovich (CA)
Joseph E. Resetar (NJ)
Rodney B. Roberts (MS)
Arlan M. Roesler (WI)
Mark J. Rone (IL)
Barry J. Sanderson (MT)
John J. Steigauf (MN)
Berton W. Stroup (PA)
Ronnie P. Thomas (TN)
William L. Thompson (MN)
Juan A. Villanueva (TX)
Robert D. Watts (TX)
Cindy L. Wells (NY)
Charles W. White (IN)
Herman D. Whitehurst (AR)
Michael G. Worl (MT)
Tommy W. Wornick (TX)
Robert T. Yeftich (IN)
Alan C. Yeomans (CT)
Chad C. Yerkey (PA)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0018. Their
exemptions are effective as of August 19, 2016, and will expire on
August 19, 2018.
    As of August 27, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 13 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce. (77 FR 40941; 77 FR
51845):

Randall W. Amtower (WV)
Steven Brickey (CO)
Ronald K. Coleman (KY)
Randall L. Corrick (ND)
Raymond G. Gravesandy (NY)
John T. Green (TX)
Gregory M. Harris (TX)
Kelly M. Keller (ND)
Joseph L. Miska (MN)
Susan L. Mosel (WI)
Jacob D. Oxford (ID)
Robert D. Regavich (NJ)
Ramon I. Zamora-Ortiz (WA)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0163. Their
exemptions are effective as of August 27, 2016, and will expire on
August 27, 2018.
    Each of the 125 drivers in the aforementioned groups qualifies for
a renewal of the exemption. They have maintained their required medical
monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-
year exemption period.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of the
125 drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of
safety equal to that existing without the exemption. The drivers were
included in docket numbers FMCSA-2006-24210; FMCSA-2010-0162; FMCSA-
2012-0162; FMCSA-2012-0163; FMCSA-2014-0018.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by January 17, 2017.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 125 individuals from rule
prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate
commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from
rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate
commerce. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Federal Register publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these

drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety
should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse
evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take
immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket numbers FMCSA-2006-24210; FMCSA-
2010-0162; FMCSA-2012-0162; FMCSA-2012-0163; FMCSA-2014-0018 and click
the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue
``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new
page, enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after
the close of the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert
the docket number FMCSA-2006-24210; FMCSA-2010-0162; FMCSA-2012-0162;
FMCSA-2012-0163; FMCSA-2014-0018 and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments
related to this notice.

    Issued on: December 2, 2016.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-30281 Filed 12-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10851-10853]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03147]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0319; EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0527; EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0579;
FRL-10632-02-OLEM]

Deletion From the National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the
deletion of one site and the partial deletion of two sites from the
Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, created under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the
states, through their designated state agencies, have determined that
all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed.
However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under
Superfund.

DATES: The document is effective February 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under
the Docket Identification included in Table 1 in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. The Final Close-Out
Report (FCOR, for a full site deletion) or the Partial Deletion
Justification (PDJ, for a partial site deletion) is the primary
document which summarizes site information to support the deletion. It
is typically written for a broad, non-technical audience and this
document is included in the deletion docket for each of the sites in
this rulemaking. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Docket materials
are available through https://www.regulations.gov or at the
corresponding Regional Records Centers. Locations, addresses, and phone
numbers of the Regional Records Center follows.
     Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Mail code 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303.
     Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund
Division Records Manager, Mail code SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building,
7th Floor South, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-
4465.
     Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), US EPA Region 6 Records
Center 1201 Elm

St., Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75270; 214/665-7544.
     EPA Headquarters Docket Center Reading Room (deletion
dockets for all states), William Jefferson Clinton (WJC) West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004, (202)
566-1744.
    EPA staff listed below in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section may assist the public in answering inquiries about deleted
sites and accessing deletion support documentation, determining whether
there are additional physical deletion dockets available, or if COVID
restrictions affect deletion docket access.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
     Leigh Lattimore, U.S. EPA Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS,
NC, SC, TN), [email protected], 404/562-8768.
     Karen Cibulskis, U.S. EPA Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH,
WI), [email protected], 312/886-1843.
     Brian Mueller, U.S. EPA Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX),
[email protected], 214/665-7167.
     Charles Sands, U.S. EPA Headquarters,
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPL, created under section 105 of
CERCLA, as amended, is an appendix of the NCP. The NCP establishes the
criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with
40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further
response is appropriate. Partial deletion of sites is in accordance
with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and are consistent with the Notice of Policy
Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities
List, 60 FR 55466, (November 1, 1995). The sites to be deleted are
listed in Table 1, including docket information containing reference
documents with the rationale and data principally relied upon by the
EPA to determine that the Superfund response is complete. The NCP
permits activities to occur at a deleted site, or that media or parcel
of a partially deleted site, including operation and maintenance of the
remedy, monitoring, and five-year reviews. These activities for the
site are entered in Table 1 in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section,
if applicable, under Footnote such that; 1= site has continued
operation and maintenance of the remedy, 2= site receives continued
monitoring, and 3= site five-year reviews are conducted. As described
in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site or portion of a site deleted
from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if
future conditions warrant such actions.

                                                     Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Site name              City/county, state           Type              Docket No.         Footnote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Finishing/Cone Mills.......  Greenville, SC.....  Partial..............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0
                                                                               579.
Wauconda Sand & Gravel..........  Wauconda, IL.......  Partial..............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0  1,2,3
                                                                               319.
River City Metal Finishing......  San Antonio, TX....  Full.................  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0
                                                                               527.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information concerning the sites to be deleted and partially
deleted from the NPL, the proposed rule for the deletion and partial
deletion of the sites, and information on receipt of public comment(s)
and preparation of a Responsiveness Summary (if applicable) are
included in Table 2.

                                                                         Table 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Full site deletion
                                      Date,                                                                                (full) or media/
            Site name                proposed            FR citation                Public comment         Responsiveness summary    parcels/description
                                       rule                                                                                for partial deletion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Finishing/Cone Mills........    8/17/2022  87 FR 50596.................  No.......................  No.......................  70-acres of Operable
                                                                                Unit 1 Main
                                                                                Facility which
                                                                                includes soil,
                                                                                surface water, and
                                                                                sediment.
Wauconda Sand & Gravel...........    8/17/2022  87 FR 50596.................  No.......................  No.......................  Approximately 76-
                                                                                acres of soil.
River City Metal Finishing.......    8/17/2022  87 FR 50596.................  Yes......................  Yes......................  Full.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the sites proposed for deletion, the closing date for comments
in the proposed rule was September 16, 2022. The EPA received two
public comments on the River City Metal Finishing site in this final
rule. EPA placed the comments in the docket specified in Table 1, on
https://www.regulations.gov, and in the appropriate Regional Records
Center listed in the ADDRESSES section. One public comment was not
germane to the proposed rulemaking. The second commentor believes
CERCLA gives no guarantee that harm will not be done to public health
again in the future at the site. The commenter believes if a site is no
longer considered to be a hazard, it should be noted that it was once
classified as a priority and ranked lower overall on the NPL rather
than deleted from the NPL. In response, no hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that
preclude unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. This means that under
the current and future residential, commercial, and industrial land use
scenarios, the site poses no unacceptable risks to human health and the
environment. Thus, EPA concluded that no action is warranted under
CERCLA, and the site can be deleted from the NPL.
    The deletion criteria for the Site have been met. A Responsiveness
Summary was prepared and placed in the site deletion docket, EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2022-0527 on https://www.regulations.gov, and in the appropriate
Regional Records Centers listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    For all other sites not specified above, no adverse comments were
received.
    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action.
Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the

NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a
site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the
unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

Larry Douchand,
Office Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 300
as follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.

0
2. In Appendix B to part 300 amend Table 1 by:
0
a. Revising the entry for ``IL'', ``Wauconda Sand & Gravel'',
``Wauconda'';
0
b. Removing the entry for ``TX'', ``River City Metal Finishing'', ``San
Antonio''.
    The revision reads as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                   Table 1--General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   State            Site name            City/county        Notes (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
IL.........  Wauconda Sand & Gravel.  Wauconda.........               P

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

[FR Doc. 2023-03147 Filed 2-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 65066]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22774]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0016]

Meeting To Implement Pandemic Response Voluntary Agreement Under
Section 708 of the Defense Production Act; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Announcement of meeting; request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a
document in the Federal Register of October 8, 2020, concerning a
meeting announcement and request for comments to implement the
Voluntary Agreement for the Manufacture and Distribution of Critical
Healthcare Resources Necessary to Respond to a Pandemic. The document
contained incorrect timeframes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Glenn, Office of Business,
Industry, Infrastructure Integration, via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
via phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of October 8, 2020, in FR Doc. 2020-22149
on page 63567, in the second column, correct the ``Dates'' caption to
read:
    DATES: The meeting will take place on Tuesday, October 13, 2020,
from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). The first portion of the
meeting, from approximately 2:30 to 3:30 p.m., will be open to the
public. Written comments for consideration at the meeting must be
submitted and received by 12:00 p.m. ET on Monday, October 12, 2020. To
register to attend the meeting or to make remarks during the public
comment period of the meeting, contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below by 12:00 p.m. ET on Monday,
October 12, 2020.

    Dated: October 9, 2020.
Shabnaum Q. Amjad,
Deputy Associate Chief Counsel, Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of
Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-22774 Filed 10-9-20; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P


NOTE SUBJECT: Consultation with Missouri Department of Natural Resources TO: File FROM: Stephen Hoffman DATE: 2/ 27/ 06 The purpose of this note is to document consultation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources regarding the use of chat in pavement. On October 3, 2005 I called David Mosby, Missouir DNR, Remedial Project Manager, Drew Butten, DNR, Robert Stout, Director, DNR, and Chris Rittest, Divison of Environmental Quality to discuss the chat rulemaking.

It was pointed out that chat may not be leaching high amounts of lead into ground water rather lead leachate may be bound in soils and leachate may flow into surface waters. MDNR staff indicated that there was little data on the use of chat in concrete. There is some evidence that public works had used chat amended concrete in sidewalks in Kansas City. There also appears to be some use of chat as a agricultural lime additive. Region 7 chat guidelines however do not support the use of chat for this use.

They also indicated that the areal scope of the rule should include Lawrence, Barry, Jasper and Newton counties.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 26, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31423-31427]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10834]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0580; FRL-10009-48-Region 6]

New Source Performance Standards; Delegation of Authority to
Oklahoma

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of delegation.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
update the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect Oklahoma's
current New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) delegation status and
mailing address for the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ). The ODEQ has submitted updated

regulations for delegation of the EPA authority for implementation and
enforcement of certain NSPS. The updated State regulations incorporate
by reference certain NSPS promulgated by the EPA, as they existed
through June 30, 2018.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or
before June 25, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2010-0580, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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 Randy Pitre, (214) 665-
7229; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available due to docket file size restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy Pitre, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff,
the EPA Region 6 office will be closed to the public to reduce the risk
of transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the public to submit comments
via https://www.regulations.gov, as there will be a delay in processing
mail and no courier or hand deliveries will be accepted. Please call or
email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    Section 111(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7411(c)(1),
authorizes the EPA to delegate to a state the authority to implement
and enforce NSPS promulgated by the EPA under CAA section 111(b) and
codified at part 60 of title 40 of the CFR. CAA section 111(c)(2)
states that the EPA retains the authority to enforce any applicable
NSPS delegated to a state. On March 25, 1982, the EPA approved the
delegation of authority to implement and enforce NSPS to Oklahoma (1982
NSPS Delegation). See 47 FR 1785 (April 22, 1982). On October 8, 1999,
the EPA updated Oklahoma's NSPS delegation, including specific
provisions setting forth the terms and conditions of the delegation of
authority for NSPS responsibility to the ODEQ (1999 NSPS Delegation).
See 64 FR 57392 (October 25, 1999). Copies of the initial 1982 NSPS
Delegation and the 1999 NSPS Delegation updates are included in the
docket for this action, both of which contain provisions specifying
conditions and limitations applicable to the EPA's delegation of
authority to implement and enforce the NSPS in Oklahoma.
    Under the terms and conditions of the 1999 NSPS Delegation,
``[f]uture provisions of 40 CFR part 60 shall be delegated to ODEQ
pursuant to this agreement provided that (1) ODEQ requests delegation
and provides copies of the proposed or adopted rules, (2) ODEQ adopts
the federal standard without change (e.g., incorporation by reference)
and (3) EPA does not object to the delegation within thirty (30) days
of ODEQ's request.'' See Specific Provision 1 of the 1999 NSPS
Delegation.

II. ODEQ's December 23, 2019 NSPS Delegation Update

    By letter dated December 23, 2019, the ODEQ requested an update to
its NSPS delegation. ODEQ reaffirmed that it retains all required
authorities set forth in 40 CFR 60.4 for delegation of a CAA section
111(c) program and all authority identified in the 1982 and 1999 NSPS
Delegations. ODEQ provided copies of the duly adopted state regulations
which incorporate specifically identified NSPS found at 40 CFR part 60
into the Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 252:100-2 and OAC 252:100
Appendix A, as published in the Oklahoma Register on September 3, 2019
(36 Okla. Reg. 1573) with an effective date of September 15, 2019.\1\
These ODEQ regulations are, therefore, at least as stringent as the
EPA's rules. See 40 CFR 60.10(a). ODEQ's December 23, 2019, request
included the following NSPS in 40 CFR part 60, as they existed through
June 30, 2018: 40 CFR part 60, subparts A (except sections 60.4, 60.9,
60.10, and 60.16), D, Da, Db, Dc, E, Ea, Eb, Ec, F, G, Ga, H, I, J, Ja,
K, Ka, Kb, L, M, N, Na, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AAa,
BB, BBa, CC, DD, EE, GG, HH, KK, LL, MM, NN, PP, QQ, RR, SS, TT, UU,
VV, VVa, WW, XX, BBB, DDD, FFF, GGG, GGGa, HHH, III, JJJ, KKK, LLL,
NNN, OOO, PPP, QQQ, RRR, SSS, TTT, UUU, VVV, WWW, XXX, AAAA, CCCC,
EEEE, IIII, JJJJ, KKKK, LLLL, OOOO, OOOOa, TTTT, and Appendices A and B
to 40 CFR part 60.\2\ In accordance with the authority provided by CAA
section 111(c)(1) and consistent with the provisions of the 1982 NSPS
Delegation and the 1999 NSPS Delegation, the EPA has determined that
the ODEQ has met the conditions required for approval of the ODEQ's
requested update to its NSPS delegation, as described above. All
authorities not affirmatively and expressly requested by the ODEQ are
not delegated. In addition, the provisions and conditions contained in
the 1982 and 1999 NSPS Delegations remain in effect, including Specific
Provision 7 of the 1999 NSPS Delegation which states that the
delegation excludes the State's authority for sources located on Indian
lands.\3\ Furthermore, no authorities are delegated that require
rulemaking in the Federal Register to implement, or where Federal
overview is the only way to ensure national consistency in the
application of the standards. All inquiries and requests concerning
implementation and enforcement of the excluded standards in the State
of Oklahoma should be directed to the EPA Region 6 Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Furthermore, the EPA retains any
authority in an individual NSPS that may not be delegated according to
provisions of the standard. Finally, the EPA retains the

authorities stated in the 1982 and 1999 NSPS Delegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ODEQ previously submitted requests to the EPA for
updates to the Oklahoma NSPS delegation, by letters dated June 29,
2018, November 2, 2016, March 17, 2015, August 23, 2012, and May 5,
2000. EPA has determined that such requests meet the requirements of
the CAA and the 1982 and 1999 NSPS Delegations concerning the
approval of the EPA's delegation of authority for the enforcement
and implementation of the NSPS in Oklahoma.
    \2\ See EPA Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0580 in
www.regulations.gov.
    \3\ For purposes of the ODEQ's NSPS delegation, the term
``Indian lands'' is synonymous with the term ``Indian county,'' as
defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    Apart from the notification of the updated NSPS delegation to the
ODEQ as discussed above, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 60
to include a table of the specific NSPS delegated to the ODEQ and
update the mailing address for the ODEQ. If finalized as proposed, 40
CFR 60.4(b)(38) will be amended to read: State of Oklahoma: State of
Oklahoma, Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division,
P.O. Box 1677, Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677, and the following language
and table will be added to 40 CFR 60.4(e):

                           Delegation Status for Part 60 Standards--State of Oklahoma
                                           [Excluding Indian Country]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Subpart                               Source category                                ODEQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...........................  General Provisions (except Sections 60.4, 60.9,       Yes.
                               60.10 and 60.16).
D...........................  Fossil Fueled Steam Generators (250 MM BTU/hr)......  Yes.
Da..........................  Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (250 MM BTU/  Yes.
                               hr).
Db..........................  Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating  Yes.
                               Units (100 to 250 MM BTU/hr).
Dc..........................  Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Small Steam       Yes.
                               Generating Units (10 to 100 MM BTU/hr.
E...........................  Incinerators (>50 tons per day).....................  Yes.
Ea..........................  Municipal Waste Combustors..........................  Yes.
Eb..........................  Large Municipal Waste Combustors....................  Yes.
Ec..........................  Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators......  Yes.
F...........................  Portland Cement Plants..............................  Yes.
G...........................  Nitric Acid Plants..................................  Yes.
Ga..........................  Nitric Acid Plants (after October 14, 2011).........  Yes.
H...........................  Sulfuric Acid Plants................................  Yes.
I...........................  Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities..........................  Yes.
J...........................  Petroleum Refineries................................  Yes.
Ja..........................  Petroleum Refineries (After May 14, 2007)...........  Yes.
K...........................  Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids (After 6/11/73  Yes.
                               & Before 5/19/78).
Ka..........................  Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids (After 6/11/73  Yes.
                               & Before 5/19/78).
Kb..........................  Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (Including    Yes.
                               Petroleum Liquid Stg/Vessels) After 7/23/84.
L...........................  Secondary Lead Smelters.............................  Yes.
M...........................  Secondary Brass and Bronze Production Plants........  Yes.
N...........................  Primary Emissions from Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces  Yes.
                               (Construction Commenced After June 11, 1973).
Na..........................  Secondary Emissions from Basic Oxygen Process         Yes.
                               Steelmaking Facilities Construction is Commenced
                               After January 20, 1983.
O...........................  Sewage Treatment Plants.............................  Yes.
P...........................  Primary Copper Smelters.............................  Yes.
Q...........................  Primary Zinc Smelters...............................  Yes.
R...........................  Primary Lead Smelters...............................  Yes.
S...........................  Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants...................  Yes.
T...........................  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Wet Process            Yes.
                               Phosphoric Plants.
U...........................  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Superphosphoric Acid   Yes.
                               Plants.
V...........................  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Diammonium Phosphate   Yes.
                               Plants.
W...........................  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Triple Superphosphate  Yes.
                               Plants.
X...........................  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Granular Triple        Yes.
                               Superphosphate Storage Facilities.
Y...........................  Coal Preparation Plants.............................  Yes.
Z...........................  Ferroalloy Production Facilities....................  Yes.
AA..........................  Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces After 10/21/74 &  Yes.
                               On or Before 8/17/83.
AAa.........................  Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces & Argon-Oxygen    Yes.
                               Decarburization Vessels After 8/07/83.
BB..........................  Kraft Pulp Mills....................................  Yes.
BBa.........................  Kraft Pulp Mill Affected Sources for Which            Yes.
                               Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification
                               Commenced After May 23, 2013.
CC..........................  Glass Manufacturing Plants..........................  Yes.
DD..........................  Grain Elevators.....................................  Yes.
EE..........................  Surface Coating of Metal Furniture..................  Yes.
GG..........................  Stationary Gas Turbines.............................  Yes.
HH..........................  Lime Manufacturing Plants...........................  Yes.
KK..........................  Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants..............  Yes.
LL..........................  Metallic Mineral Processing Plants..................  Yes.
MM..........................  Automobile & Light Duty Truck Surface Coating         Yes.
                               Operations.
NN..........................  Phosphate Manufacturing Plants......................  Yes.
PP..........................  Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture........................  Yes.
QQ..........................  Graphic Arts Industry: Publication Rotogravure        Yes.
                               Printing.
RR..........................  Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating     Yes.
                               Operations.
SS..........................  Industrial Surface Coating: Large Appliances........  Yes.
TT..........................  Metal Coil Surface Coating..........................  Yes.
UU..........................  Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacture..  Yes.
VV..........................  VOC Equipment Leaks in the SOCMI Industry...........  Yes.
VVa.........................  VOC Equipment Leaks in the SOCMI Industry (After      Yes.
                               November 7, 2006).
WW..........................  Beverage Can Surface Coating Industry...............  Yes.
XX..........................  Bulk Gasoline Terminals.............................  Yes.
AAA.........................  New Residential Wood Heaters........................  No.
BBB.........................  Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry..................  Yes.

DDD.........................  Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from the    Yes.
                               Polymer Manufacturing Industry.
FFF.........................  Flexible Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing....  Yes.
GGG.........................  VOC Equipment Leaks in Petroleum Refineries.........  Yes.
GGGa........................  Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC   Yes.
                               in Petroleum Refineries for Which Construction,
                               Reconstruction or Modification Commenced After
                               November 7, 2006.
HHH.........................  Synthetic Fiber Production..........................  Yes.
III.........................  VOC Emissions from the SOCMI Air Oxidation Unit       Yes.
                               Processes.
JJJ.........................  Petroleum Dry Cleaners..............................  Yes.
KKK.........................  VOC Equipment Leaks From Onshore Natural Gas          Yes.
                               Processing Plants.
LLL.........................  Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO2 Emissions.......  Yes.
NNN.........................  VOC Emissions from SOCMI Distillation Operations....  Yes.
OOO.........................  Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants...............  Yes.
PPP.........................  Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants.....  Yes.
QQQ.........................  VOC Emissions From Petroleum Refinery Wastewater      Yes.
                               Systems.
RRR.........................  VOC Emissions from SOCMI Reactor Processes..........  Yes.
SSS.........................  Magnetic Tape Coating Operations....................  Yes.
TTT.........................  Industrial Surface Coating: Plastic Parts for         Yes.
                               Business Machines.
UUU.........................  Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries..........  Yes.
VVV.........................  Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates            Yes.
                               Facilities.
WWW.........................  Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.....................  Yes.
XXX.........................  Municipal Solid Waste Landfills that Commenced        Yes.
                               Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification after
                               July 17, 2014.
AAAA........................  Small Municipal Waste Combustion Units (Construction  Yes.
                               is Commenced After 8/30/99 or Modification/
                               Reconstruction is Commenced After 6/06/2001.
CCCC........................  Commercial & Industrial Solid Waste Incineration      Yes.
                               Units (Construction is Commenced After 11/30/1999
                               or Modification/Reconstruction is Commenced on or
                               After 6/01/2001.
EEEE........................  Other Solid Waste Incineration Units (Constructed     Yes.
                               after 12/09/2004 or Modification/Reconstruction is
                               commenced on or after 06/16/2004).
IIII........................  Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion   Yes.
                               Engines.
JJJJ........................  Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion         Yes.
                               Engines.
KKKK........................  Stationary Combustion Turbines (Construction          Yes.
                               Commenced After 02/18/2005).
LLLL........................  New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units................  Yes.
OOOO........................  Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission    Yes.
                               and Distribution for which Construction,
                               Modification or Reconstruction Commenced After
                               August 23, 2011, and on or before September 18,
                               2015.
OOOOa.......................  Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities for which        Yes.
                               Construction, Modification or Reconstruction
                               Commenced After September 18, 2015.
TTTT........................  Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Electric...............  Yes.
                              Generating Units....................................
N/A.........................  Appendices A (Test Methods) and B (Performance        Yes.
                               Specifications).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the EPA previously delegated to the ODEQ the
authority to implement and enforce certain NSPS for sources located in
Oklahoma, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7411(c)(1); see also 40 CFR
60.4(b). Pursuant the terms and conditions of that delegation, this
action informs the public that the EPA has found the ODEQ's December
23, 2019, request to update the delegation status for NSPS meets
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. Through this action, the EPA is proposing
to add a table to 40 CFR part 60 listing the specific NSPS currently
delegated to the ODEQ and update the ODEQ's address for submittal of
documents required under the delegated NSPS provisions. For these
reasons, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because NSPS delegation updates 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 CAA; and
     Does not provide the 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 Oklahoma NSPS delegation does not extend to Indian
country. If finalized as proposed, the EPA's action will 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 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: May 14, 2020.
David Garcia,
Director, Air & Radiation Division, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2020-10834 Filed 5-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


The final Exhibit F. 7 shows the resulting calculation of POTW administrative hours and costs by year for each regulatory option. This exhibit also shows the present value of these costs, the annualized cost, and the maximum hours and costs incurred in any one year, for each option. These calculations reflect the incremental number of facilities requiring different types of permitting, inspection, monitoring, enforcement and repermitting in each year multiplied by the unit hours and cost per facility for those activities. All facilities are assumed to receive a permit under the final rule within the three year compliance period. Some facilities with existing permits are repermitted sooner than they otherwise would be on the normal five year permitting cycle. The cost analyses calculates incremental costs by subtracting the costs of repermitting these facilities on a five year schedule from the costs of repermitting all such facilities within three years. EPA assumes that the required initial permitting activities will be equally divided over the three year period. The analysis also calculates the net F 10 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs change in the number of facilities requiring permitting by subtracting the number of facilities that close due to the rule from the number of facilities that will require new permits under each regulatory option.

More detailed information on these cost calculations is provided in the docket for the final rule.

F 11 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs APPENDIX FEXHIBITS Exhibit F. 1: Government Administrative Activities for Indirect Dischargers: Per Facility Hours and Costs Exhibit F. 2: Per Facility Hours and Assumptions Exhibit F. 3: Low Estimate of Hours and Costs per Facility Exhibit F. 4: Medium Estimate of Hours and Costs per Facility Exhibit F. 5: High Estimate of Hours and Costs per Facility Exhibit F. 6: Number of Facilities Requiring Additional Permitting Exhibit F. 7: POTW Administrative Costs by Option F 12 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs Exhibit F. 1: Government Administrative Activities for Indirect Dischargers: Per Facility Hours and Costs Administrative Activity Percent of facilities for which activity is required Frequency of activity Typical hours and costs Low Median High Develop and issue a concentration

based permit at a previously unpermitted facility 100% of unpermitted facilities ( applicable to NODA/ Proposal option only) One time 4.0 hours; $ 122 10.0 hours;

$ 304 40.0 hours;

$ 1,217 Develop and issue a mass based permit at a previously unpermitted facility 100% of MP& M facilities being issued a new mass based permit ( estimates used for the proposed rule) One time 4.0 hours; $ 122 13.0 hours;

$ 396 40.0 hours;

$ 1,217 Develop and issue a mass based permit at a facility holding a concentration

based permit 100% of MP& M facilities with permit conversion ( estimates used for the proposed rule) One time 2.0 hours; $ 61 8.0 hours; $ 243 20.0 hours;

$ 608 year Provide technical guidance to a permittee on permit compliance 100% of MP& M facilities being issued a new concentration based permit ( applicable to NODA/ Proposal option only) One time 1.5 hour; $ 46 4.0 hours; $ 122 12.0 hours;

$ 365 100% of MP& M facilities being issued a new mass based permit ( estimates used for the proposed rule) One time 2.0 hours; $ 61 4.0 hours; $ 122 12.0 hours;

$ 365 Conduct a public or evidentiary hearing 3.2% of MP& M facilities being issued a new mass based or concentration based permit ( applicable to NODA/ Proposal option only) One time 2.0 hours;

$ 61 8.0 hours;

$ 243 40.0 hours;

$ 1,217 Inspect facility for permit development 100% of MP& M facilities being issued a new permit ( applicable to NODA/ Proposal option only) One Time 2.2 hours;

$ 66 5.0 hours;

$ 152 12.0 hours;

$ 365 Inspect facility for compliance assessment 100% of MP& M facilities being issued a new permit ( applicable to NODA/ Proposal option only) Annual 2.0 hours;

$ 61 3.3 hours;

$ 101 10.0 hours;

$ 304 Sample and analyze permittee s effluent 100% of MP& M facilities being issued a new permit ( applicable to NODA/ Proposal option only) Annual 1.0 hour;

$ 30 3.0 hours;

$ 91 17.7 hours;

$ 537 Review and enter data from permittee s compliance self monitoring reports 100% of MP& M facilities being issued a new permit ( applicable to NODA/ Proposal option only) 2 reports per year 0.5 hours;

$ 15 1.0 hour;

$ 30 4.0 hours;

$ 122 Receive, process and act on a permittee s non compliance reports 38.5% of all indirect dischargers receiving a new permit ( applicable to NODA/ Proposal option only) 5 times per year 1.0 hour;

$ 30 2.0 hours;

$ 61 6.0 hours;

$ 183 Review a compliance schedule report Meeting milestones: 16.0% of all facilities issued a new permit   94% of the 17% who have compliance milestones ( applicable to NODA/ Proposal option only) 2 reports per year 0.5 hours;

$ 15 1.0 hour;

$ 30 2.7 hours;

$ 81 Not meeting milestones: 1% of all facilities issued a new permit   6% of the 17% who have compliance milestones ( applicable to NODA/ Proposal option only) 2 reports per year 1.0 hours;

$ 30 2.0 hours;

$ 61 6.0 hours;

$ 183 Minor enforcement action e. g., issue an administrative order 7% of MP& M facilities being issued a new permit ( applicable to NODA/ Proposal option only) Annual 1.0 hour; $ 30 3.7 hours; $ 112 12.0 hours; $ 365 Minor enforcement action, e. g., impose an administrative fine 7% of MP& M facilities being issued a new permit ( applicable to NODA/ Proposal option only) Annual 1.0 hour;

$ 30 5.0 hours;

$ 152 24.0 hours;

$ 730 Repermit 100% of MP& M facilities being issued a new permit ( applicable to NODA/ Proposal option only) Every 5 years 1.0 hour; $ 30 4.0 hours; $ 122 20.0 hours; $ 608 Source: Estimates of hours by activity from the 1996 MP& M POTW Survey. Average hourly rate from Bureau of Labor Statistics ( Sept. 2002 rate, adjusted to $ 2001).

F 13 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs Exhibit F. 2: Per Facility Hours and Assumptions Activity Low Medium High % Facil x/ yr Notes New concentration based permit develop and issue permit 4.0 10.0 40.0 100.0% 1 one time provide technical guidance 1.5 4.0 12.0 100.0% 1 one time conduct public or evidentiary hearings 2.0 8.0 40.0 3.2% 1 one time, 3.2% of facilities inspection for permit development 2.2 5.0 12.0 100.0% 1 one time inspection for compliance assessment 2.0 3.3 10.0 100.0% 1 annual sample and analyze effluent 1.0 3.0 17.7 100.0% 1 annual review & record self monitoring reports 0.5 1.0 4.0 100.0% 2 2x/ year process & act on non compliance reports 1.0 2.0 6.0 38.5% 5 5x/ year, 38.5% of facilities review compliance schedule report  in compliance with schedule 0.5 1.0 2.7 16.0% 2 2x/ yr, 17% of facilities with compliance milestones, of which 94% in compliance review compliance schedule report

not in compliance with schedule 1.0 2.0 6.0 1.0% 2 2x/ yr, 17% of facilities with compliance milestones, of which 6% not in compliance minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin order) 1.0 3.7 12.0 7.0% 1 annual, 7% of facilities minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin fine) 1.0 5.0 24.0 7.0% 1 annual, 7% of facilities repermit 1.0 4.0 20.0 100.0% 1 every three years New mass based permit develop and issue permit 4.0 13.0 40.0 100.0% 1 one time provide technical guidance 2.0 4.0 12.0 100.0% 1 one time conduct public or evidentiary hearings 2.0 8.0 40.0 3.2% 1 one time, 3.2% of facilities inspection for permit development 2.2 5.0 12.0 100.0% 1 one time inspection for compliance assessment 2.0 3.3 10.0 100.0% 1 annual sample and analyze effluent 1.0 3.0 17.7 100.0% 1 annual review & record self monitoring reports 0.5 1.0 4.0 100.0% 2 2x/ year process & act on non compliance reports 1.0 2.0 6.0 38.5% 5 5x/ year, 38.5% of facilities review compliance schedule report

in compliance with schedule 0.5 1.0 2.7 16.0% 2 2x/ yr, 17% of facilities with compliance milestones, of which 94% in compliance review compliance schedule report

not in compliance with schedule 1.0 2.0 6.0 1.0% 2 2x/ yr, 17% of facilities with compliance milestones, of which 6% not in compliance minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin order) 1.0 3.7 12.0 7.0% 1 annual, 7% of facilities minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin fine) 1.0 5.0 24.0 7.0% 1 annual, 7% of facilities repermit 1.0 4.0 20.0 100.0% 1 every three years Converting concentration based to mass based develop and issue permit 2.0 8.0 20.0 100.0% 1 one time provide technical guidance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0 N/ A F 14 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs Exhibit F. 2: Per Facility Hours and Assumptions Activity Low Medium High % Facil x/ yr Notes conduct public or evidentiary hearings 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0 N/ A inspection for permit development 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0 N/ A inspection for compliance assessment 2.0 3.3 10.0 100.0% 1 annual sample and analyze effluent 1.0 3.0 17.7 100.0% 1 annual review & record self monitoring reports 0.5 1.0 4.0 100.0% 2 2x/ year process & act on non compliance reports 1.0 2.0 6.0 38.5% 5 5x/ year, 38.5% of facilities review compliance schedule report

in compliance with schedule 0.5 1.0 2.7 16.0% 2 2x/ yr, 17% of facilities with compliance milestones, of which 94% in compliance review compliance schedule report

not in compliance with schedule 1.0 2.0 6.0 1.0% 2 2x/ yr, 17% of facilities with compliance milestones, of which 6% not in compliance minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin order) 1.0 3.7 12.0 7.0% 1 annual, 7% of facilities minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin fine) 1.0 5.0 24.0 7.0% 1 annual, 7% of facilities repermit 1.0 4.0 20.0 100.0% 1 every three years Discount rate: 7%

Average hourly rate: $ 30.42 ($ 2001)

Source: Estimates of hours by activity from the 1996 MP& M POTW Survey. Average hourly rate from Bureau of Labor Statistics ( Sept. 2002 rate, adjusted to $ 2001).

F 15 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs Exhibit F. 3: Low Estimate of Hours and Costs per Facility ( average considering frequency of activity and percent of facilities requiring activity)

Activity Initial Year Annual ( non permitting year) Repermit Year New concentration based permit develop and issue permit 4 provide technical guidance 2 conduct public or evidentiary hearings 0 inspection for permit development 2 inspection for compliance assessment 2 2 2 sample and analyze effluent 1 1 1 review & record self monitoring reports 1 1 1 process & act on non compliance reports 2 2 2 review compliance schedule report  in compliance with schedule 0 0 0 review compliance schedule report  not in compliance with schedule 0 0 0 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin order) 0 0 0 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin fine) 0 0 0 repermit 1 Total Hours by Year 14 6 7 Total Dollars by Year $ 425 $ 190 $ 220 New mass based permit develop and issue permit 4 provide technical guidance 2 conduct public or evidentiary hearings 0 inspection for permit development 2 inspection for compliance assessment 2 2 2 sample and analyze effluent 1 1 1 review & record self monitoring reports 1 1 1 process & act on non compliance reports 2 2 2 review compliance schedule report  in compliance with schedule 0 0 0 review compliance schedule report  not in compliance with schedule 0 0 0 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin order) 0 0 0 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin fine) 0 0 0 repermit 1 Total Hours by Year 14 6 7 Total Dollars by Year $ 440 $ 190 $ 220 Upgrading from concentration based to mass based develop and issue permit 2 provide technical guidance 0 conduct public or evidentiary hearings 0 inspection for permit development 0 inspection for compliance assessment 2 2 2 sample and analyze effluent 1 1 1 F 16 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs Exhibit F. 3: Low Estimate of Hours and Costs per Facility ( average considering frequency of activity and percent of facilities requiring activity)

Activity Initial Year Annual ( non permitting year) Repermit Year review & record self monitoring reports 1 1 1 process & act on non compliance reports 2 2 2 review compliance schedule report  in compliance with schedule 0 0 0 review compliance schedule report  not in compliance with schedule 0 0 0 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin order) 0 0 0 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin fine) 0 0 0 repermit 1 Total Hours by Year 8 6 7 Total Dollars by Year $ 251 $ 190 $ 220 Source: Estimates of hours by activity from the 1996 MP& M POTW Survey. Average hourly rate from Bureau of Labor Statistics ( Sept. 2002 rate, adjusted to $ 2001).

F 17 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs Exhibit F. 4: Medium Estimate of Hours and Costs per Facility ( average considering frequency of activity and percent of facilities requiring activity)

Activity Initial Year Annual ( non permitting year) Repermit Year New concentration based permit develop and issue permit 10 provide technical guidance 4 conduct public or evidentiary hearings 0 inspection for permit development 5 inspection for compliance assessment 3 3 3 sample and analyze effluent 3 3 3 review & record self monitoring reports 2 2 2 process & act on non compliance reports 4 4 4 review compliance schedule report  in compliance with schedule 0 0 0 review compliance schedule report  not in compliance with schedule 0 0 0 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin order) 0 0 0 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin fine) 0 0 0 repermit 4 Total Hours by Year 32 13 17 Total Dollars by Year $ 986 $ 400 $ 522 New mass based permit develop and issue permit 13 provide technical guidance 4 conduct public or evidentiary hearings 0 inspection for permit development 5 inspection for compliance assessment 3 3 3 sample and analyze effluent 3 3 3 review & record self monitoring reports 2 2 2 process & act on non compliance reports 4 4 4 review compliance schedule report  in compliance with schedule 0 0 0 review compliance schedule report  not in compliance with schedule 0 0 0 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin order) 0 0 0 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin fine) 0 0 0 repermit 4 Total Hours by Year 35 13 17 Total Dollars by Year $ 1,077 $ 400 $ 522 Upgrading from concentration based to mass based develop and issue permit 8 provide technical guidance 0 conduct public or evidentiary hearings 0 inspection for permit development 0 inspection for compliance assessment 3 3 3 F 18 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs Exhibit F. 4: Medium Estimate of Hours and Costs per Facility ( average considering frequency of activity and percent of facilities requiring activity)

Activity Initial Year Annual ( non permitting year) Repermit Year sample and analyze effluent 3 3 3 review & record self monitoring reports 2 2 2 process & act on non compliance reports 4 4 4 review compliance schedule report  in compliance with schedule 0 0 0 review compliance schedule report  not in compliance with schedule 0 0 0 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin order) 0 0 0 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin fine) 0 0 0 repermit 4 Total Hours by Year 21 13 17 Total Dollars by Year $ 643 $ 400 $ 522 Source: Estimates of hours by activity from the 1996 MP& M POTW Survey. Average hourly rate from Bureau of Labor Statistics ( Sept. 2002 rate, adjusted to $ 2001).

F 19 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs Exhibit F. 5: High Estimate of Hours and Costs per Facility ( average considering frequency of activity and percent of facilities requiring activity)

Activity Initial Year Annual ( non permitting year) Repermit Year New concentration based permit develop and issue permit 40 provide technical guidance 12 conduct public or evidentiary hearings 1 inspection for permit development 12 inspection for compliance assessment 10 10 10 sample and analyze effluent 18 18 18 review & record self monitoring reports 8 8 8 process & act on non compliance reports 12 12 12 review compliance schedule report  in compliance with schedule 1 1 1 review compliance schedule report  not in compliance with schedule 0 0 0 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin order) 1 1 1 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin fine) 2 2 2 repermit 20 Total Hours by Year 116 51 71 Total Dollars by Year $ 3,529 $ 1,543 $ 2,151 New mass based permit develop and issue permit 40 provide technical guidance 12 conduct public or evidentiary hearings 1 inspection for permit development 12 inspection for compliance assessment 10 10 10 sample and analyze effluent 18 18 18 review & record self monitoring reports 8 8 8 process & act on non compliance reports 12 12 12 review compliance schedule report  in compliance with schedule 1 1 1 review compliance schedule report  not in compliance with schedule 0 0 0 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin order) 1 1 1 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin fine) 2 2 2 repermit 20 Total Hours by Year 116 51 71 Total Dollars by Year $ 3,529 $ 1,543 $ 2,151 Upgrading from concentration based to mass based develop and issue permit 20 provide technical guidance 0 conduct public or evidentiary hearings 0 inspection for permit development 0 inspection for compliance assessment 10 10 10 F 20 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs Exhibit F. 5: High Estimate of Hours and Costs per Facility ( average considering frequency of activity and percent of facilities requiring activity)

Activity Initial Year Annual ( non permitting year) Repermit Year sample and analyze effluent 18 18 18 review & record self monitoring reports 8 8 8 process & act on non compliance reports 12 12 12 review compliance schedule report  in compliance with schedule 1 1 1 review compliance schedule report  not in compliance with schedule 0 0 0 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin order) 1 1 1 minor enforcement action ( e. g., admin fine) 2 2 2 repermit 20 Total Hours by Year 71 51 71 Total Dollars by Year $ 2,151 $ 1,543 $ 2,151 Source: Estimates of hours by activity from the 1996 MP& M POTW Survey. Average hourly rate from Bureau of Labor Statistics ( Sept. 2002 rate, adjusted to $ 2001).

F 21 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs Exhibit F. 6: Number of Facilities Requiring Additional Permitting Option II: NODA/ Proposal Option Number of facilities operating post regulation requiring a permit 3,687 Of facilities operating post regulation:

existing concentration based 692 existing mass based 2,892 no permit in baseline 103 concentration based to be converted to mass based 0 new concentration based 103 new mass based 0 Number of currently permitted facilities closing ( no longer requiring a permit) 722 Of facilities closing due to the rule:

existing concentration based 209 existing mass based 513 Option III: Directs + 413 to 433 Upgrade Number of facilities operating post regulation requiring a permit 954 Of facilities operating post regulation:

existing concentration based 184 existing mass based 770 no permit in baseline 0 concentration based to be converted to mass based 0 new concentration based 0 new mass based 0 Number of currently permitted facilities closing ( no longer requiring a permit) 120 Of facilities closing due to the rule:

existing concentration based 0 existing mass based 120 Option IV: Directs + 413+ 50% LL Upgrade Number of facilities operating post regulation requiring a permit 1,414 Of facilities operating post regulation:

existing concentration based 515 existing mass based 899 no permit in baseline 0 concentration based to be converted to mass based 0 new concentration based 0 new mass based 0 Number of currently permitted facilities closing ( no longer requiring a permit) 120 Of facilities closing due to the rule:

existing concentration based 0 existing mass based 120 Source: U. S. EPA analysis.

F 22 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs Exhibit F. 7: POTW Administrative Costs by Option (@ 7% discount rate)

Option II: NODA/ Proposal Option Year Relative to Promulgation of Rule 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total Hours High 32,561  15,017  28,095  60,763  60,763  30,038  30,038  30,038  60,763  60,763  30,038  30,038  30,038  60,763  60,763 M edium 33,603  4,289  7,680  14,480  14,480  8,335  8,335  8,335  14,480  14,480  8,335  8,335  8,335  14,480  14,480 Low 33,638  2,472  4,083  5,908  5,908  4,372  4,372  4,372  5,908  5,908  4,372  4,372  4,372  5,908  5,908 Tota l Cos ts High $ 990,604 $ 456,868 $ 854,738 $ 1,848,612 $ 1,848,612 $ 913,859 $ 913,859 $ 913,859 $ 1,848,612 $ 1,848,612 $ 913,859 $ 913,859 $ 913,859 $ 1,848,612 $ 1,848,612 M edium $ 1,022,297 $ 130,480 $ 233,655 $ 440,526 $ 440,526 $ 253,575 $ 253,575 $ 253,575 $ 440,526 $ 440,526 $ 253,575 $ 253,575 $ 253,575 $ 440,526 $ 440,526 Low $ 1,023,378 $ 75,221 $ 124,220 $ 179,746 $ 179,746 $ 133,008 $ 133,008 $ 133,008 $ 179,746 $ 179,746 $ 133,008 $ 133,008 $ 133,008 $ 179,746 $ 179,746 High M edium Low N P V $ 9,357,000 $ 1,802,000 $ 422,000 Annualized Cost $ 1,027,000 $ 198,000 $ 46,000 M ax O ne Y ear H ours 32,561 33,603 33,638 M ax O ne Y ear C osts $ 991,000 $ 1,022,000 $ 1,023,000 Option III: Directs + 413 to 433 Upgrade Year Relative to Promulgation of Rule 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total Hours High 33  2,513  5,059  13,011  13,011  5,059  5,059  5,059  13,011  13,011  5,059  5,059  5,059  13,011  13,011 M edium  144  805  1,465  3,055  3,055  1,465  1,465  1,465  3,055  3,055  1,465  1,465  1,465  3,055  3,055 Low  185  498  812  1,209  1,209  812  812  812  1,209  1,209  812  812  812  1,209  1,209 Tota l Cos ts High $ 1,000 $ 76,451 $ 153,901 $ 395,845 $ 395,845 $ 153,901 $ 153,901 $ 153,901 $ 395,845 $ 395,845 $ 153,901 $ 153,901 $ 153,901 $ 395,845 $ 395,845 M edium $ 4,394 $ 24,479 $ 44,563 $ 92,952 $ 92,952 $ 44,563 $ 44,563 $ 44,563 $ 92,952 $ 92,952 $ 44,563 $ 44,563 $ 44,563 $ 92,952 $ 92,952 Low $ 5,616 $ 15,154 $ 24,692 $ 36,789 $ 36,789 $ 24,692 $ 24,692 $ 24,692 $ 36,789 $ 36,789 $ 24,692 $ 24,692 $ 24,692 $ 36,789 $ 36,789 High M edium Low NPV $ 1,982,000 $ 509,000 $ 238,000 Annualized Cost $ 218,000 $ 56,000 $ 26,000 M ax O ne Y ear H ours 33  144  185 M ax O ne Y ear C osts $ 1,000 $ 4,000 $ 6,000 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 F 23 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs Exhibit F. 7: POTW Administrative Costs by Option (@ 7% discount rate)

Option IV: Directs + 413+ 50% LL Upgrade Year Relative to Promulgation of Rule 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total Hours High 1,566  980  3,525  15,311  15,311  3,525  3,525  3,525  15,311  15,311  3,525  3,525  3,525  15,311  15,311 M edium 162  498  1,158  3,515  3,515  1,158  1,158  1,158  3,515  3,515  1,158  1,158  1,158  3,515  3,515 Low  108  421  735  1,324  1,324  735  735  735  1,324  1,324  735  735  735  1,324  1,324 Tota l Cos ts High $ 47,645 $ 29,805 $ 107,256 $ 465,813 $ 465,813 $ 107,256 $ 107,256 $ 107,256 $ 465,813 $ 465,813 $ 107,256 $ 107,256 $ 107,256 $ 465,813 $ 465,813 M edium $ 4,935 $ 15,150 $ 35,234 $ 106,945 $ 106,945 $ 35,234 $ 35,234 $ 35,234 $ 106,945 $ 106,945 $ 35,234 $ 35,234 $ 35,234 $ 106,945 $ 106,945 Low $ 3,283 $ 12,822 $ 22,360 $ 40,288 $ 40,288 $ 22,360 $ 22,360 $ 22,360 $ 40,288 $ 40,288 $ 22,360 $ 22,360 $ 22,360 $ 40,288 $ 40,288 High M edium Low N P V $ 1,940,000 $ 501,000 $ 236,000 Annualized Cost $ 213,000 $ 55,000 $ 26,000 M ax O ne Y ear H ours 1,566 162  108 M ax O ne Y ear C osts $ 48,000 $ 5,000 $ 3,000 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Source: Estimates of hours by activity from the 1996 MP& M POTW Survey. Average hourly rate from Bureau of Labor Statistics ( Sept. 2002 rate, adjusted to $ 2001).

F 24 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs REFERENCES Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies ( AMSA). 2000. Survey on Proposed MP& M Effluent Guidelines.

U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Average Hourly Rate.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. MP& M POTW Survey.

F 25 MP& M EEBA: Appendices Appendix F: Administrative Costs THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK F 26


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53510-53511]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21428]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0342]

Hours of Service of Drivers; Application for American Moving &
Storage Association Exemption From the 14-Hour Rule

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the American Moving & Storage Association
(AMSA) has applied for an exemption for its 3,700 member companies from
FMCSA's regulation prohibiting operators of commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) from driving following the 14th hour after coming on duty. The
exemption would enable AMSA's drivers to drive their CMVs from a
residential area, after completion of household goods shipments, to the
nearest place offering safety and security. In no case would the
drivers be permitted to drive more than 75 miles or 90 minutes after
the 14th hour. FMCSA requests public comment on AMSA's application for
exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2014-0342 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 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: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document management system
is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDAS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and,

if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving the
exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Request for Exemption

    The American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA) is a national
trade association representing the segment of the motor carrier
industry that specializes in household goods transportation. AMSA has
approximately 3,700 household goods carrier members, including national
and international van lines with agency networks; independent national
and regional van lines; and local agents affiliated with a van line
network. AMSA's members provide relocation services throughout North
America and at strategic points throughout the world.
    AMSA is seeking an exemption from the ``14-hour rule'' in 49 CFR
395.3(a)(2), which prohibits a property-carrying CMV driver from
driving a CMV after the 14th hour after coming on duty following 10
consecutive hours off duty. Under AMSA's proposal, the exemption would
only be used by drivers who need to move their trucks from the
customer's residence to a safe place for overnight parking when there
are delays in completing the job. The overnight parking location would
offer safety for the occupants of the CMV, security for the CMV and its
cargo, and avoid creating a safety hazard on local streets. In no case
would the driver be permitted to drive more than 75 miles or 90 minutes
after reaching the 14th hour. Upon reaching a safe place to park their
CMVs, drivers using this exemption would then be required to take 10
hours off duty before driving again. The driver must notify the motor
carrier each time the extension is used. These log entries would
provide verification and a record whenever the exemption is used and be
available during compliance reviews.
    AMSA contends that operations of its sector of the trucking
industry are unique, not only in the commodities carried, but also in
the types of services provided and in how its daily operations are
conducted. AMSA's drivers spend more time on residential streets than
at loading docks, and drive irregular routes based on where customers
live, rather than using established freight lanes between large,
industrial warehouses.
    Drivers typically spend a great part of their 14-hour driving
window not driving. Instead, on-duty drivers work in private homes
supervising the sorting, wrapping and packing of personal items, the
disassembly and the reassembly of furniture and appliances, and the
loading and unloading of non-palletized, irregularly shaped, individual
items and cartons. The needs of customers dictate that most loading/
unloading times start between 8-9 a.m. Consumers frequently change
their plans and expect their movers to accommodate these changes. The
list of potential unforeseen, impossible-to-plan-for situations that
can cause delay is nearly endless. All of these issues can change
schedules beyond the original plan developed by the mover.
    AMSA states that the vast majority of these situations will not
impact their drivers' ability to complete residential loading or
unloading jobs within the 14-hour rule. However, when rare, unusual and
unforeseen circumstances arise, the 14-hour rule forces drivers nearing
the end of their 14-hour shifts to choose one of two impractical
alternatives, either (1) stop a moving crew from completing the loading
or unloading of a customer's household goods shipment in order to be
able to drive the moving truck from the customer's residence to a place
offering safety for the occupants of the CMV, security for the CMV and
its cargo, and to avoid creating a safety hazard on local streets, or
(2) permit completion of the loading or unloading, but leave the moving
truck where it is, typically parked on an unsecured residential street,
for at least 10 hours before they are permitted to drive again. Neither
choice permits efficient, effective or safe operation.
    AMSA believes that the requested exemption is comparable to the
current regulation permitting certain ``short-haul'' drivers an
increased driving window once per week, and other non-CDL short-haul
drivers two such extended duty periods per week. The driving
circumstances experienced under this exemption--the relatively short
time and distance needed to remove their CMVs from residential areas to
safe locations--can be analogous to the ``short-haul'' situations. AMSA
acknowledges that its members and drivers using the requested exemption
would still be subject to all of the other Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations, including all other hours-of-service requirements.
    A copy of AMSA's application for exemption is available for review
in the docket for this notice.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA
requests public comment on AMSA's application for an exemption from
certain provisions of the driver's HOS rules in 49 CFR part 395. The
Agency will consider all comments received by close of business on
October 9, 2014. Comments will be available for examination in the
docket at the location listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    Issued on: August 29, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-21428 Filed 9-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P