[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35104-35112]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12318]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0949; FRL-9532-02-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky Area to Attainment of the 2015 Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finds that the
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky area (Area) is attaining the 2015 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) and is acting
in accordance with a request from the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (OEPA) to redesignate the Ohio portion of the Area to attainment
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because the request meets the statutory
requirements for redesignation under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Area
includes Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties in Ohio and
parts of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties in Kentucky. OEPA
submitted the request for redesignation for the Ohio portion of the
area (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties) on December 21,
2021. EPA is also approving, as a revision to the Ohio State
Implementation Plan (SIP), the state's plan for maintaining the 2015
ozone standard through 2035 in the Area. Finally, EPA is approving the
state's 2026 and 2035 volatile organic compound (VOC) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) motor vehicle emission budgets for the Ohio
portion of the Area for transportation conformity purposes. EPA
received comments on its February 11, 2022, proposed rule. After
considering comments received, EPA is finalizing this action as
proposed.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 9, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0949. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) 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. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID-19. We recommend that you telephone Olivia
Davidson, Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olivia Davidson, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

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

I. Background Information

    This rule takes final action on the December 21, 2021, submission
from OEPA requesting redesignation of the Ohio portion of the
Cincinnati area to attainment for the 2015 ozone standard. The
background for this action is discussed in detail in EPA's Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Proposal), dated February 11, 2022 (87 FR 7978).
In the Proposal, we noted that, under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part
50, the 2015 ozone NAAQS is attained in an area when the 3-year average
of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is equal to or less than 0.070 parts per million, when
truncated after the third decimal place, at all of the ozone monitoring

sites in the area. (See 40 CFR 50.19 and appendix U of part 50.) Under
the CAA, EPA may redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment if
sufficient complete, quality-assured data are available to determine
that the area has attained the standard and if it meets the other CAA
redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). The Proposal
provides a detailed discussion of how Ohio has met these CAA
requirements.
    As discussed in the Proposal, quality-assured and certified
monitoring data for 2019-2021 show that the Area has attained the 2015
ozone standard. In the maintenance plan submitted for the Area, Ohio
has demonstrated that the ozone standard will be maintained in the Area
through 2035. Finally, Ohio has adopted 2026 and 2035 VOC and
NOX motor vehicle emission budgets for the Area that are
supported by Ohio's maintenance demonstration, which EPA is also
approving in this action.

II. Public Comments

    EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for this action in
the Proposal. The comment period ended on March 14, 2022. EPA received
adverse comments, which are summarized and addressed below.
    Comment: The commenter contends that EPA has not adequately
demonstrated that the observed decrease in emissions is attributable to
enforceable emission reductions. The commenter argues that some of the
emission reduction measures that EPA relies on were in place well
before 2019, i.e., that the measures themselves were insufficient to
get the area to attainment because even after implementation of those
measures in 2014 and 2017, the area continued to violate the NAAQS, and
did not come into attainment until the 2019-2021 time period. The
commenter cites the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update, Tier
3 Emission Standards, Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine Standards, and,
more generally, several mobile source control measures that were
``fully implemented'' prior to 2014.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's contention that EPA
has not adequately demonstrated that the observed decrease in emissions
is attributable to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions,
per CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii).\1\ As stated in EPA's long-standing
guidance on redesignations (see ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992), we
interpret this provision to mean that ``[a]ttainment resulting from
temporary reductions in emission rates (e.g., reduced production or
shutdown due to temporary adverse economic conditions) or unusually
favorable meteorology would not qualify as an air quality improvement
due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions.'' Calcagni Memo
at 4. EPA's guidance instructs that the showing under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) ``should estimate the percent reduction . . .
achieved from Federal measures . . . as well as control measures that
have been adopted and implemented by the State,'' and that overall, we
must be able to ``reasonably attribute the improvement in air quality
to emission reductions which are permanent and enforceable.'' Id. EPA's
correlation of improvements in air quality with an identification of
permanent and enforceable state and Federal measures, along with the
estimated reductions in precursor emissions that cause ozone pollution
which are attributable to each measure over the relevant time period,
has long been one methodology to demonstrate compliance with CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and has been upheld in court. See Sierra Club
v. EPA, 774 F.3d 383, 393-95 (7th Cir. 2014). As noted by the court in
Sierra Club, ``the CAA does not require EPA to prove causation to an
absolute certainty. Rather in accord with its own internal guidance . .
. EPA had to `reasonably attribute' the drops in ozone to permanent and
enforceable measures. Only if EPA's path cannot `be reasonably
discerned,' or if EPA relied on factors `that Congress did not intend
it to consider' or `fail[ed] to consider an important aspect of the
problem,' will we conclude that EPA acted arbitrarily or
capriciously.'' Id. at 396.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The commenter states that it does not support EPA's proposal
to redesignate the Area because OEPA has failed to demonstrate that
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) is met. However, as that statutory
provision clearly states, the Administrator may not promulgate a
redesignation of a nonattainment area unless ``the Administrator
determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent
and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions.'' On its face, the statute permits EPA to
not only consider Ohio's submittal and demonstration, but also any
other information EPA has regarding emission reductions in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter is correct that some of the measures cited by EPA as
contributing to the area's attainment, including the CSAPR Update, Tier
3 Emissions Standards, and Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine Standards,
were in place prior the area's attainment. However, that does not mean
that these control measures did not contribute to and were not
reasonably attributable to the area's attainment. Control measures do
not achieve all emission reductions in the first year that those
measures are implemented. State and Federal emission reduction
requirements continue to apply well past the initial implementation
year and continue to achieve reductions that contribute to improving,
and in this case, attaining, air quality. Some mobile source measures
in particular will continue to achieve cumulative emission reductions
well past the initial implementation date because they achieve
additional reductions with fleet turnover, i.e., as older on-road
vehicles and non-road engines are replaced with newer ones that meet
more stringent emission standards.
    On September 7, 2016, EPA finalized an update to CSAPR requiring
further reductions in NOX emissions from electric generating
units (EGUs) beginning in May 2017. This final rule was projected to
result in a 20% reduction in ozone season NOX emissions from
EGUs in the eastern United States, a reduction of 80,000 tons in 2017
compared to 2015 levels, with continued EGU reductions each year.
Emissions of NOX from EGUs in Ohio have reflected the
continued emission reductions measures, as NOX emissions
from EGUs in Ohio have been reduced by 29 percent statewide from 2016
through 2020. The continued application of these reductions in Ohio and
upwind states was a key contributor to improved and attaining air
quality in Cincinnati. In addition, EPA finalized the revised CSAPR
Update on April 30, 2021 (86 FR 23054), and that rule required
additional reductions of almost 10,000 tons of ozone season
NOX in Ohio,\2\ equivalent to a 50% reduction in EGU
emissions, effective by the 2021 ozone season, i.e., one of the years
in the design value period that shows attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See OEPA's Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for
the Ohio Portion of the Cincinnati, OH-KY 2015 Ozone Nonattainment
Area, contained in docket EPA-OAR-R05-2021-0949 for the proposed
rule that published February 11, 2022 (87 FR 7978) approving the
redesignation request, page 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the mobile sources measures cited by the commenter,
the commenter incorrectly states that the Tier 3 Emission Standards for
Vehicles were fully implemented by 2017. In fact, the standards, which
are expected to reduce NOX and VOC emissions by 80%, first
took effect in 2017, and will continue to be phased in through 2025,
after which additional reductions will continue to be achieved through
fleet

turnover. Similarly, the Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine Standards,
which will reduce NOX emissions from new engines by 80%,
began in 2016, and emission reductions will continue to occur at least
through 2030 as older engines are replaced. These standards, in
conjunction with rules reducing emissions from international and in-use
vessels covered by MARPOL Annex VI, are estimated to result in
NOX emissions reductions in the United States of 1.2 million
tons per year (tpy). Reductions from both Tier 3 Emissions Standards
and Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine Standards first took effect between
the nonattainment period and the attainment period but have been
achieving emission reductions every year since they were first
implemented. EPA reasonably attributed the improved air quality in the
Cincinnati area to these significant control measures, even if those
measures did not immediately and independently cause the Area to attain
the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    In addition, there are numerous other permanent and enforceable
control measures that resulted in emission reductions that contributed
to and are reasonably attributable for the Area's attainment. These
include the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Residential
Wood Heaters, of which Phase 2 began in 2020 and is projected by EPA to
achieve 9,265 tons of VOC reductions annually when fully implemented;
the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources, which EPA
estimates will reduce VOC emissions by over 1 million tons by 2030; and
the Emissions Standards for Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition
Engines, first promulgated in 2008, which EPA projected to reduce
NOX emissions by 800,000 tons in 2030 which will continue to
increase in later years as fleet turnover is completed.
    None of these control programs which rely upon the replacement of
older, more polluting technology with newer technology that meets more
stringent emissions standards can be considered fully implemented upon
initial adoption of the emission standard. The rules are considered
fully implemented when the fleet has turned over and the new technology
is in widespread use. Additional reductions from these programs
continue to be generated throughout the implementation period as newer
units replace older, more polluting units.
    In reviewing Ohio's request, EPA applied the same methodology as it
has for the many redesignated areas across the country over the last
three decades. The Proposal discussed at length the various state and
Federal promulgated measures and the estimated precursor emission
reductions impacts attributable to each of those measures. The
commenter does not dispute the permanence or enforceability of any of
the measures listed by EPA, nor does the commenter refute that the
measures obtained the estimated reductions cited by EPA.
    Comment: The commenter argues that EPA's determination that
improved air quality during 2019-2021 was caused by permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions program is unlawful, arbitrary, and
capricious because EPA did not evaluate whether decreased economic
activity from the COVID-19 pandemic caused improved air quality in the
Area. The commenter contends that EPA should not rely solely on data
from 2019, 2020 and 2021 when the Area came into attainment, due to
COVID-19 effects on power plant emissions and automobile travel being
the likely cause of the reductions rather than the cited enforceable
reduction measures. Further, the commenter argues that the fact that
EPA considered the impact of the pandemic in the Agency's proposal to
redesignate Detroit, Michigan demonstrates that it was unreasonable for
EPA to ignore the potential impact of the pandemic on Cincinnati's
attainment.
    Response: EPA does not agree that our determination that the Area's
attainment is due to permanent and enforceable reductions is arbitrary
and capricious. As previously discussed, we think that OEPA's
submission and the rationale provided in EPA's Proposal establishes
that the Area's attainment is due to the cited permanent and
enforceable reductions. However, in response to this comment, EPA has
performed an additional analysis focused on emission trends in point
sources and mobile sources in the Cincinnati area. That analysis,
discussed in detail below, confirms our determination.
    The commenter highlighted nationally decreased power plant
emissions during the COVID-19 pandemic recession beginning in 2020.
Therefore, EPA evaluated the point source emissions from Butler,
Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties in Ohio, the counties that make
up the Ohio portion of the Area, based on data from EPA's Emissions
Inventory System (EIS) \3\ Gateway. The point source reductions
achieved from the nonattainment year 2014 through the attainment year
of 2019 show NOX and VOC emission reductions of 22 and 12
percent, respectively. Between 2019 (pre-pandemic) and 2020 (pandemic),
NOX point source emission were reduced by 0.4 percent. The
vast majority of the emission reductions did not occur as a result of
the pandemic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-system-eis-gateway, last accessed 3/24/2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also analyzed the pandemic's impact on passenger and truck
traffic in response to the commenter's assertion that automobile travel
``plunged'' in 2020 as a result of the pandemic. We found that,
consistent with statewide trends, car traffic did decrease during the
pandemic, but truck traffic increased. From mid-March 2019 to mid-March
2020, passenger and truck traffic in Hamilton County, the county which
contains the Cincinnati city limits, were down 12 percent and 4
percent, respectively.\4\ From mid-March 2019 to mid-March 2021,
passenger traffic was down 19 percent, while truck traffic was up by 5
percent. Expanding this further, from mid-March 2019 to mid-March 2022,
passenger traffic was down 12 percent while truck traffic was up by 9
percent. This pattern highlights several components of the United
States' `new normal' since the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic. An
Ohio statewide analysis by the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council
of Governments (OKI) assesses the `new normal' including monthly
traffic impacts after the state of emergency was lifted on June 6,
2021, concluded overall traffic conditions in 2021 were decreased by a
range of 3 to 7 percent, from June 2021 through January 2022,
considering a monthly average. Separating between car and truck
traffic, over the same time period, car traffic was decreased ranging
from 5 to 9 percent, while truck traffic was increased from June 2021
through January 2022, ranging from 9 to 14 percent. In EPA's 2017
National Emissions Inventory (NEI), there were 31,762 tpy of
NOX attributed to heavy duty vehicles (HDV) in Clermont,
Butler, Hamilton, and Warren counties and 38,564 tpy of NOX
attributed to light duty vehicles (LDV). Thus a 10% decrease in LDV
Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and a 10% increase in HDV VMT would be
expected to lead to a small net decrease in onroad NOX
emissions for these counties of less than 1,000 tpy and corresponding
to a change of less than 1 percent. Thus, assuming that vehicle traffic
scales linearly with NOX emissions, decreases in LDV VMT

of between 3 and 19% paired with changes in truck VMT ranging from a 4%
decrease to a 14% increase could lead to net NOX change
ranging from a decrease of approximately 8,600 tpy to an increase of
approximately 3,300 tpy corresponding to a 12% decrease and a 5%
increase respectively. As a result of these light duty and heavy duty
VMT trends in opposite directions in the Cincinnati area it is not
clear whether the COVID-19 lockdowns led to any significant net mobile
NOX reductions in this nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The data was acquired by the Ohio Department of
Transportation (ODOT) Statewide Traffic Analysis website, see
https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiZDRjZWRiNTktZGI2Ny00MzdjLTk1ZTYtNjAwNjUzZThlYjBlIiwidCI6IjUwZjhmY2M0LTk0ZDgtNGYwNy04NGViLTM2ZWQ1N2M3YzhhMiJ9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A similar analysis by OKI of the Ohio counties in the Area
(Clermont, Butler, Hamilton, and Warren) included average weekday daily
traffic in the OKI region from 2019 to 2021, from 20 (directional) Ohio
Department of Transportation (ODOT) permanent traffic count stations
(Table 1). The results highlight 2021 car traffic levels higher than
2020, but remaining approximately 7 percent below 2019 traffic levels,
while truck traffic increased by 13 percent from 2019 to 2021, which
OKI characterizes as the `new normal'. Truck traffic did not experience
the marked decrease beginning in March of 2020 at the outbreak of
COVID-19 to the degree car traffic experienced, and by late June of
2020, truck traffic counts equaled June 2019 truck traffic counts, and
exceeded them throughout the rest of 2020. This distinction is
pertinent because EPA has found that in the upper Midwest, the majority
of ozone exceedances occur in late May though late July. In the Area in
particular, through the 2011-2021 time period, as ozone design values
have decreased, ozone exceedances are more likely to occur later in the
ozone season, and most likely in the months of June or July.\5\ This
time period would be within the same time frame that 2020 truck traffic
returned to and exceeded 2019 truck traffic and hence, would have
entered the `new normal' conditions by the time the Area experiences
its highest ozone values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/air-data-ozone-exceedances, last accessed 3/29/2022.

   Table 1--Average Weekday Daily Traffic Counts in Clermont, Butler, Hamilton, and Warren Counties, 2019-2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2019 Average     2020 Average     2021 Average
                         Vehicle type                           weekday daily    weekday daily    weekday daily
                                                                   traffic          traffic          traffic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Car..........................................................          526,880          440,190          487,522
Truck........................................................           54,429           56,461           61,560
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An analysis performed by OKI showed that VMT values are projected
to increase throughout the maintenance period in the Area.\6\ While EPA
recognizes COVID-19 led to decreases in traffic and mobile source
emissions, EPA would like to emphasize that the Area has continued to
model decreases in on-road emissions despite modeled VMT increases,
leaving the Area with an even larger margin when comparing on-road
emissions in 2019 and emissions in 2026 and 2035 if the `new normal'
conditions prove to be temporary and traffic again rises beyond what is
forecast in the maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See OEPA's December 21, 2021, submittal contained in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, NEI trends data shows consistent decreases in both
NOX and VOC emissions in Ohio from highway vehicles since
2011, and off-highway NOX and VOC emissions since 2002. With
the many mobile source reduction measures in place in Ohio, EPA has no
reason to believe that the reductions achieved are based on a brief
period of decreased VMT in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
    As suggested by the commenter, EPA also performed an analysis
similar to the one performed by Michigan's Environment, Great Lakes and
Energy agency in their submittal requesting redesignation of the
Detroit area for the 2015 ozone standard,\7\ to evaluate whether the
improvement in air quality was caused by temporary adverse economic
conditions, especially the economic conditions associated with the
COVID-19 pandemic which first impacted Ohio in 2020. EPA first
considered point source reduction trends, noting that between 2005 and
2017, OEPA provided that Ohio's NOX and VOC emissions
decreased by 57 percent and 33 percent, respectively. Further, EPA
compared the maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations against VMT and
employment from 2014 through 2021. This highlighted that while
employment levels were affected by COVID-19 and saw a decrease of
employed individuals of almost 12,000 comparatively from the average
2019 levels to April of 2020, employment returned to 2019 levels by
July 2020, according to Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) Quarterly
Census of Employment and Wages.\8\ Employment levels continued to
increase through 2021, and while the analysis showed a correlation
between VMT and employment in the Area, no direct correlation between
these economic indicators and the high ozone values was identified. The
VMT and emissions values generated by OKI using EPA's MOVES3 model
indicate increasing VMT and decreasing emissions from the nonattainment
year of 2014, through the attainment year of 2019, the interim year of
2026, and the end year of 2035. Further, under section 176(c) of the
CAA, new transportation plans, programs, or projects that receive
Federal funding or support, such as the construction of new highways,
must ``conform'' to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP. Conformity to
the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause or
contribute to any new air quality violations, increase the frequency or
severity of any existing air quality problems, or delay timely
attainment or any required interim emissions reductions or any other
milestones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The proposed approval to redesignate the Detroit, Michigan
area to attainment of the 2015 Ozone Standards published on March
14, 2022 (87 FR 14210).
    \8\ See www.bls.gov/cew/. Last accessed March 22, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ohio's maintenance plan includes NOX and VOC motor
vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) for the Area for 2026, the interim
year, and 2035, the last year of the maintenance period (Table 2). The
budgets are the portion of the total allowable emissions that are
allocated to highway and transit vehicle use that, together with
emissions from other sources in the Area, will provide for attainment
or maintenance. These budgets represent the projected 2026 and 2035 on-
road emissions plus a safety margin and are consistent with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which is described below. Detailed information
on the transportation

conformity program can be found in our Proposal.

 Table 2--2026 and 2035 Budgets for the Ohio Portion for the 2015 Ozone
                         NAAQS Maintenance Area
                       [Tons per summer day, TPSD]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2026     2035
                       Pollutant                         Budget   Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX...................................................    14.15    10.58
VOC...................................................    25.30    18.98
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A ``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level
of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions
(from all sources) in the maintenance plan. Further, the transportation
conformity regulations allow states to allocate all or a portion of a
documented safety margin to the motor vehicle emissions budgets for an
area (40 CFR 93.124(a)). Ohio is allocating a portion of that safety
margin to the mobile source sector. Specifically, in 2026, Ohio is
allocating 1.85 TPSD and 3.30 TPSD of the VOC and NOX safety
margins, respectively. In 2035, Ohio is allocating 1.38 TPSD and 2.48
TPSD of the VOC and NOX safety margins, respectively. Since
only a part of the safety margin is being used, maintenance
requirements are still easily met. Once allocated to on-road mobile
sources, these safety margins will not be available for use by other
sources.
    EPA recognizes the difficulties in assessing the impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic on ozone precursor emissions and ozone design values
and the economic disparities from the COVID-19 pandemic, but we do not
agree that the Area's attainment is due to a temporary economic
downturn associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. To the contrary, our
analysis of the available data regarding point source emissions in the
Cincinnati area and trends in vehicular traffic do not indicate that
the Area's attainment was driven by temporary conditions. The effect of
the pandemic on point source emissions in the Area was insignificant in
comparison to the effect of enforceable control measures, and the
decrease in passenger vehicle VMT during the pandemic is not only
largely offset by an increase in truck traffic but likely does not have
a strong correlation with maximum ozone design values. OKI's mobile
source modeling performed for the Area indicates that vehicular
emission control measures will continue to drive emissions down even as
VMT is projected to increase.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that ozone concentrations from the
design value period 2017-2019 (i.e., before the COVID-19 pandemic)
undermines EPA's finding that the reduced ambient ozone concentrations
observed in 2019-2021 are in fact attributable to permanent and
enforceable regulations that took effect between 2004 and 2017. The
commenter points out that during the 2017-2019 time period, several
monitors in the Area recorded annual 4th high daily maximum 8-hour
ozone concentrations that exceeded the level of the NAAQS. The
commenter contends that EPA's failure to consider this earlier period
(i.e., 2017-2019) as a relevant set of data for assessing the relative
impact of enforceable emission reductions and the impact of the COVID-
19 pandemic on reduced ozone levels in 2020-2021 was arbitrary and
capricious and calls into question the reasonableness of EPA's proposed
redesignation to attainment. The commenter also notes that EPA looked
at precursor emissions from 2014 and 2019 but only analyzed ozone
concentrations during the 2019-2021 period.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that the
fact that the Cincinnati area was not attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
2017-2019 (i.e., before the COVID-19 pandemic) undermines our
conclusion that the Area has attained due to permanent and enforceable
measures, as opposed to decreases in emissions associated with the
pandemic. As discussed in the previous comment responses, many of the
permanent and enforceable measures applicable to the sources in the
Area or to sources upwind of the Area impose continued, and in some
cases additional, emission reductions with each year of implementation
(e.g., phased-in mobile source standards in addition to fleet
turnover). Control measures do not obtain all emission reductions in
the first year of their implementation, and not all impacts from a
control measure are necessarily reflected in ozone concentrations in
that year. Ozone formation and measured concentrations are dependent on
a host of factors, including emissions and meteorology, and the
continued application of many control measures across many source
categories over a period of time has a significant impact on decreasing
ozone concentration trends.
    We therefore do not think that violating data from 2017-2019
necessarily means that attaining data from 2019-2021 was caused by a
reduction in emissions due to the pandemic. However, in response to the
commenter's suggestion, we analyzed emissions information for point
sources in the Area and for mobile sources in the Area during pre-
pandemic periods and from the years 2020 and 2021 (i.e., during the
pandemic). Our conclusion, discussed in the comment response above, is
that while the pandemic likely had some impact on emissions in the
Area, that impact does not appear to have been the primary driver of
decreased ozone concentrations in the Area.
    To further support OEPA's demonstration that the improvement in air
quality between the year violations occurred and the year attainment
was achieved, is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions
and not on favorable meteorology, the state included a classification
and regression tree (CART) analysis to demonstrate that the improvement
in air quality was not due to unusually favorable meteorology, which
was performed by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO).
The goal of the analysis was to determine the meteorological and air
quality conditions associated with ozone episodes, and construct trends
for the days identified as sharing similar meteorological conditions in
ozone nonattainment areas in the LADCO region. Regression trees were
developed for the Cincinnati area ozone data to classify each summer
day by its ozone concentration and associated meteorological
conditions. By grouping days with similar meteorology, the influence of
meteorological variability on the underlying trend in ozone
concentrations is partially removed and the remaining trend is presumed
to be due to trends in precursor emissions or other non-meteorological
influences. The CART analysis showed the resulting trends in ozone
concentrations declining over the period examined, 2005 through 2020,
supporting the conclusion that the improvement in air quality was not
due to unusually favorable meteorology.
    The CART analysis shows that ozone concentrations for all five
high-ozone day types have decreased over the last 16 years,
demonstrating that on days with similar meteorology, ozone
concentrations on high-ozone days at Cincinnati monitors have decreased
substantially since 2005. Overall, OEPA concluded that average summer
temperatures have remained steady and average ozone concentrations have
decreased from 2005 through 2021, providing a strong basis to conclude
that reductions in precursors are responsible for the reductions in
elevated ozone concentrations in the Area, and that these emission
reductions were not

solely or primarily driven by a pandemic-related decrease in emissions
or unusually favorable meteorology, but rather by the host of permanent
and enforceable state and federal measures that have been applied and
will continue to apply over time.
    Further, we find no fault with Ohio's examination of 2019 emissions
within the nonattainment area (i.e., the attainment inventory) for
purposes of illustrating the reduction in emissions in the Area over
time (from 2014 to 2019). To the extent that commenter is suggesting
Ohio also should have provided emission inventories for years 2020 and
2021, we do not agree that information was necessary to evaluate
emission trends. The State's selection of one year of emissions during
a design value period indicating nonattainment and one year of
emissions during a design value period indicating attainment was
sufficient to show that emissions had decreased substantially within
the Area during that time period. Moreover, even though the state did
not supply full emission inventories for years 2020 and 2021 (which
they were not required to do), EPA performed additional analysis of the
potential COVID-19 effects on the Area in response to the commenter's
suggestion. As discussed in the previous comment responses, that
analysis showed that point source precursor emissions of NOX
and VOC in the Area did not decrease substantially from the pre-
pandemic year of 2019 to 2020. Likewise, the Ohio state-wide analysis
by OKI concluded that overall traffic conditions in 2021 were decreased
by a range of 3 to 7 percent compared to 2019, from June 2021 through
January 2022, while truck traffic increased over the same time period.
The overall mobile source modeling indicated that an increase in VMT
does not necessarily correspond to an increase in emissions, because of
the impact of mobile source standards.
    We therefore do not agree that it is unreasonable to redesignate
the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati area to attainment of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
    Comment: The commenter argues that this action affects an
Environmental Justice (EJ) Community. Specifically, the commenter
points out that Black Americans make up more than 40% of Cincinnati's
residents, and that according to the U.S. Census, Cincinnati has twice
the poverty rate of the United States as a whole. The commenter
therefore argues that it is particularly incumbent upon EPA to
thoroughly consider the monitoring time period of 2017-2019 and not the
pandemic years of 2020 and 2021, to ensure that any redesignation to
attainment consider the ``longstanding excessive burden experienced by
Black and low-income communities in southwestern Ohio.''
    Response: EPA sets the NAAQS at a level to protect the public
health, with an adequate margin of safety, including the health of at-
risk populations, and protect the public welfare from adverse effects.
The criteria set forth in 40 CFR 50.19 and appendix U of part 50 to
attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS establishes that the 3-year average of the
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration
must be less than or equal to 0.070 ppm, which is true of the Area.
While EPA recognizes the importance of assessing impacts of our actions
on potentially overburdened communities, we believe that our approval
of Ohio's redesignation request for the 2015 ozone NAAQS would not
exacerbate existing pollution exposure or burdens for populations in
the Cincinnati area.
    Even so, Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994)
requires that Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, identify and address disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on
minority and low-income populations. Additionally, Executive Order
13985 (86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021) directs Federal Government
agencies to assess whether, and to what extent, their programs and
policies perpetuate systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for
people of color and other underserved groups, and Executive Order 14008
(86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021) directs Federal agencies to develop
programs, policies, and activities to address the disproportionate
health, environmental, economic, and climate impacts on disadvantaged
communities. To identify environmental burdens and susceptible
populations in communities in the Area, EPA performed a screening-level
analysis using EPA's EJ screening and mapping tool (``EJSCREEN'').\9\
EPA utilized the EJSCREEN tool to evaluate environmental and
demographic indicators at the county level for each county within the
Area (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren). Additional indicators of
overall pollution burden include estimates of ambient particulate
matter (PM2.5) concentration, a score for traffic proximity
and volume, percentage of pre-1960 housing units (lead paint
indicator), and scores for proximity to Superfund sites, risk
management plan (RMP) sites, and hazardous waste facilities. EPA's
screening-level analysis indicates that communities in the Area
affected by this action score below the national average for the
EJSCREEN ``Demographic Index'', which is the average of an area's
percent minority and percent low income populations, i.e., the two
demographic indicators explicitly named in Executive Order 12898. As
discussed in the EPA's EJ technical guidance, people of color and low-
income populations often experience greater exposure and disease
burdens than the general population, which can increase their
susceptibility to adverse health effects from environmental
stressors.\10\ Additionally, EPA has provided that if any of the EJ
indexes for the areas under consideration are at or above the 80th
percentile nationally, then further review may be appropriate.\11\ The
results indicate that these areas score below the 80th percentile (in
comparison to the nation as a whole) in the twelve EJ Indexes
established by EPA, which include a combination of environmental and
demographic information, with one exception. In Hamilton county, the EJ
Index for Risk Management Plan (RMP) Facility Proximity scored at the
81st percentile. This EJ index considers the count of RMP (potential
chemical accident management plan) facilities within 5 km (or nearest
one beyond 5 km), each divided by distance in kilometers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See documentation on EPA's Environmental Justice Screening
and Mapping Tool at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen, last accessed 5/2/
2022.
    \10\ EPA, ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental
Justice in Regulatory Analysis,'' section 4 (June 2016).
    \11\ EPA, ``EJSCREEN Technical Documentation,'' appendix H
(September 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering these results, EPA further considered forthcoming and
existing emission reduction measures that may help to mitigate existing
pollution issues in the Area. The Area's redesignation to attainment
will include the continued application of the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements including installation of
the Best Available Control Technology (BACT), air quality analysis,
additional impacts analysis, and public involvement for new and
modified sources. The Federal mobile source and point source emission
reduction programs and NOX cap and trade programs through
CSAPR, identified as the permanent and enforceable regulations which
led to the Area's attainment, remain in place and will continue to
achieve reductions. Further, Ohio has submitted a maintenance plan that
shows continuing reductions in NOX and VOC

emissions through 2035 and includes contingency measure provisions to
address any possible future violation of the NAAQS.
    Additionally, Ohio has adopted regulations to address the
NOX and VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
requirements that apply to moderate areas. Despite Cincinnati's current
marginal ozone classification, Ohio voluntarily adopted these RACT
rules for the Area after planning efforts were underway for moderate
RACT requirements for the 2015 ozone standard in Cleveland. The
NOX RACT Rule 3745-110 of the Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC), which became effective March 25, 2022, applies to existing
boilers, stationary combustion turbines, stationary internal combustion
engines, reheat furnaces, or sources located at a facility that emits
or has the potential to emit a total of more than 100 tpy of
NOX emissions and specifically states applicability to
sources located in Butler, Clermont, Hamilton or Warren county.\12\
Similarly, VOC RACT Rule 3745-21 of the OAC, effective March 27, 2022,
is applicable to various source categories in Butler, Clermont,
Hamilton and Warren counties to facilities that have a total
uncontrolled potential to emit for VOC emissions of 100 tpy. OEPA has
submitted the VOC RACT rules that cover both Cleveland and Cincinnati
for approval into the Ohio SIP and have submitted the NOX
RACT rules that apply to Cleveland for approval into the Ohio SIP.
Hence, they will be implementing NOX RACT in both Cleveland
and Cincinnati, and NOX RACT will be federally enforceable
in Cleveland. These rules will be SIP strengthening and go beyond what
is required in the Area at the Federal level and are expected to
achieve additional emission reductions and contribute to maintenance of
the ozone standard in the Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See https://epa.ohio.gov/divisions-and-offices/air-pollution-control/regulations/effective-rules/dapc-effective-rules,
last accessed 5/20/2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA acknowledges that ozone problems may not be solved through
redesignations, that regional solutions are required, and that
coordinated cooperation between stakeholders may lead to improved air
quality. As previously noted, OEPA has established a maintenance plan
containing contingency measures as a safeguard designed to ensure
compliance with the NAAQS going forward. EPA also continues to
implement programs addressing regional and interstate transport of
NOX, such as the Revised CSAPR Update. Finally, EPA
encourages the commenter to remain engaged with stakeholders in the
effort to protect human health and the environment.

III. Final Action

    In accordance with Ohio's December 21, 2021, request, EPA is
redesignating the Cincinnati Ohio-Kentucky nonattainment area from
nonattainment to attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA finds that the
Area is attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS and meets the statutory
requirements for redesignation under the CAA. EPA is also approving
Ohio's maintenance plan, which is designed to ensure that the Area will
continue to maintain the ozone NAAQS through 2035. Lastly, EPA is
approving the state's 2026 and 2035 NOX and VOC motor
vehicle emission budgets for the Ohio portion of the Area.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), EPA finds there is good cause for this action to become
effective immediately upon publication. The immediate effective date
for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2020-title5/pdf/USCODE-2020-title5-partI-chap5-subchapII-sec553.pdf, last
accessed 3/16/2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 553(d)(1) of the APA provides that final rules shall not
become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register ``except . . . a substantive rule which grants or recognizes
an exemption or relieves a restriction.'' The purpose of this provision
is to ``give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior before the final rule takes effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed.
Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United
States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting
legislative history). However, when the agency grants or recognizes an
exemption or relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a
reasonable time to adjust because the effect is not adverse. EPA has
determined that this rule relieves a restriction because this rule
relieves sources in the area of Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)
permitting requirements; instead, upon the effective date of this
action, sources will be subject to less restrictive PSD permitting
requirements. For this reason, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1) for this action to become effective on the date of
publication of this action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For 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);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as

appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, 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 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).
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 8, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: June 2, 2022.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52
and 81 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.1870, the table in paragraph (e) is amended under
``Summary of Criteria Pollutant Maintenance Plan'' by adding an entry
for ``Ozone (8-Hour, 2015)'' before the entry for ``PM-10'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                         EPA-Approved Ohio Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
                                   geographical or
             Title                 non-attainment      State date       EPA approval             Comments
                                        area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Summary of Criteria Pollutant Maintenance Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Ozone (8-Hour, 2015)...........  Cincinnati              12/21/2021  6/9/2022, [INSERT   EPA is approving the
                                  (Butler,                            FEDERAL REGISTER    following elements: a
                                  Clermont,                           CITATION].          determination that the
                                  Hamilton, and                                           Cincinnati area has
                                  Warren Counties).                                       attained the 2015 8-
                                                                                Hour ozone standard, a
                                                                                maintenance plan for
                                                                                the 2015 a8-Hour ozone
                                                                                NAAQS, 2026 and 2035
                                                                                VOC and NOX motor
                                                                                vehicle emission
                                                                                budgets for the
                                                                                Cincinnati area.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. Section 81.336 is amended in the table entitled ``Ohio-2015 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' by revising the entry for
``Cincinnati, OH-KY'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.336  Ohio.

* * * * *

                                                              Ohio--2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                                                 [Primary and secondary]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Designation                                             Classification
         Designated area \1\         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Date \2\                       Type                       Date \2\                       Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cincinnati, OH-KY...................  June 9, 2022...............  Attainment.................  ...........................  Marginal.
    Butler County.
    Clermont County.
    Hamilton County.

    Warren County.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the boundaries of any area of Indian country
  in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation
  area is not a determination that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ This date is August 3, 2018, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-12318 Filed 6-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From: Wilson, Erika
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 3:41 PM
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Bremer, Kristen; Hackel, Angela; Risley, David
Subject: Web comment on the Clean Power Plan

Hello Mrs. Klemun

Thank you for your inquiry.  In response to the question you submitted to the Clean Power Plan web site regarding methane emissions:

Yes, that is correct.  Those CO2 emissions reflect the amount of CO2 emitted from the stack at power plants.  However, Appendix 3A of the RIA does contain analysis and discussion of potential upstream methane emission changes in Natural Gas Systems:  http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602ria-clean-power-plan.pdf.

Thank you for your interest in the Clean Power Plan.

Erika Wilson
Clean Air Markets Division
Office of Atmospheric Programs
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. EPA
202.343.9113
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Submitted on 10/28/2014 9:09AM
Submitted values are:

Name: Magdalena Klemun
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments:
Dear Madam or Sir,

I am a researcher working in the field of energy policy analysis at MIT's Engineering Systems Division (Trancik Lab). We are planning to submit a comment on the Clean Power Plan, and during the course of analysis an important question regarding methane emissions came up.
The projected power sector carbon dioxide emissions in the Regulatory Impact Analysis document for 2020, 2025 and 2030 are given in CO2, not CO2 equivalent (Table ES-2). Is it safe to conclude that the carbon dioxide equivalent of upstream methane emissions has not been added to these numbers?
I am aware of EPA's projection that overall upstream methane emissions in a compliance scenario are likely to be reduced, however I wasn't sure if they were factored into total power sector emissions anyway. The unit of CO2 instead of CO2e indicates that they were not included here. Is this correct?
An answer would be much appreciated.

Thank you,

Magdalena Klemun
Research Assistant
Trancik Lab
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17240-17241]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06951]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0470]

Hours of Service of Drivers: American Trucking Associations
(ATA); Denial of Application for Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its denial of the application of ATA for an
exemption from the 14-hour provision of the Agency's hours-of-service
regulations to enable certain drivers to exclude waiting time from
their calculations of on-duty time. Currently, only specially trained
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) that are specially
constructed to service oil and natural gas extraction sites may employ
this provision. ATA proposed that FMCSA issue a limited 2-year
exemption to permit exclusion of such waiting time by drivers of CMVs
who are exclusively engaged in servicing oil and natural gas extraction
sites and have the opportunity to obtain rest while waiting at such
sites. FMCSA concluded that ATA did not demonstrate how the CMV
operations under such an exemption would achieve a level of safety
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety obtained in the
absence of the exemption.

DATES: FMCSA denied the application for exemption by letter dated
February 4, 2016, after notice and opportunity for public comment.

ADDRESSES: 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 online FDMS is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Pearlie Robinson, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-

0001. If you have questions on viewing material in the docket, contact
Docket Services at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2013-0470 in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Legal Basis

    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 (FMCSRs). 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 specify the effective period and explain the
terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49
CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Background

    Part 395 of the FMCSRs contains the hours of service (HOS) rules
for drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Section 395.8 requires most
interstate CMV drivers to maintain a handwritten or electronic record
of duty status, or log, on a 24-hour grid. They must record their duty
status as either ``off duty,'' ``sleeper berth,'' ``on duty/not
driving,'' or ``on duty/driving.'' Drivers must keep their log up to
date to the most recent change of duty status and have their log for
the current date and the preceding 7 days on board the CMV.
    Generally, a driver may not record time as ``off duty'' unless he
or she has been relieved of all duty and responsibility for the care
and custody of the CMV, its accessories, and its cargo, and is free to
pursue activities of his or her own choosing. Thus, drivers who are
waiting, whether at a loading dock or at a natural gas or oil well
site, are generally considered to be ``on duty.'' Section 395.3(a)(2)
provides that ``a driver may drive only during a period of 14
consecutive hours after coming on duty following 10 consecutive hours
off duty.'' However, the FMCSRs provide an exception to the 14-hour
rule for the waiting time of a specific classification of driver.
Section 395.1(d)(2) provides, ``In the case of specially trained
drivers of commercial motor vehicles that are specially constructed to
service oil wells, on-duty time shall not include waiting time at a
natural gas or oil well site'' (waiting-time rule). These drivers may
record such waiting time as off duty time, making note of the waiting-
time rule on their log. Section 395.1(d)(2) also provides that the
waiting time of these drivers ``shall not be included in calculating
the 14-hour period. . . .''

IV. Request for Exemption

    ATA requested a limited 2-year renewable exemption to permit
similar treatment of waiting time at such locations to drivers
``exclusively engaged in servicing oil and natural gas extraction
sites'' who are able to establish ``a method to adequately ensure a
rest opportunity while waiting.'' ATA suggested that ``trucks equipped
with sleeper berths'' and ``on-site bunking or resting facilities''
would satisfy the ``rest opportunity'' standard. ATA believes the
proposed exemption would encourage these drivers to obtain quality rest
at extraction sites and would provide an improved standard for State
officials enforcing waiting time requirements.

V. Public Comments and Agency Decision

    On May 23, 2014, FMCSA published notice of this application and
asked for public comment (79 FR 29837). The Agency received 37 comments
representing various transportation interests in response to the
proposed exemption. Twenty-one commenters expressed support for the
ATA's request for the exemption. Among the supporters were individuals
and companies such as the American Exploration & Production Council and
the National Association of Manufacturers. Eleven commenters opposed
granting the exemption as requested. The commenters included Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance.
Five individuals provided comments that neither opposed nor supported
the proposed exemption.
    The Agency reviewed ATA's application and the public comments. By
letter dated February 4, 2016, FMCSA denied the application because the
Agency concluded that CMV operations under the proposed exemption were
not likely to achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than
the level of safety that would be achieved in the absence of the
exemption [49 CFR 381.310(c)(5)]. Fatigue during the work day
represents the greatest safety risk because the 60- and 70-hour rules
would remain in effect if the exemption or petition were granted. The
proposed relief from the 14-hour rule would enable miscellaneous off-
duty periods at the oil or natural gas work sites to be excluded when
determining whether the individual may operate the CMV during the work
day. This creates the potential for extremely long work days provided
the individual has not accumulated 14 hours of on-duty time prior to
completing his/her driving tasks for the day. This may represent an
extreme condition but the current waiting time exception does not
include a limit and the ATA's request would extend this potentially
risky option to a wider population of oil and natural gas workers.
    A copy of the denial letter is in the docket referenced at the
beginning of this notice.

    Issued on: March 21, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-06951 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


BeO August 16 2006 Visit
Mike Berakis and Marc Kolanz
8/16/06
30 or 40 small presses. Maybe only fifteen.
Machining fluid is all collected and filtered in one system and then returned to the
machines.
No be metal or be alloys here at Tucson.
50 protection factor
The area that called lasers would be laser machining operations, which is right next to
isopress. Making parts for lasers, machining but not lasers.
Laser scribing is gone. Was here, had a Co2 laser for cutting. Hadn't used it in years. Had
been enclosed and ventilated. Generate emissions. Customers
1980s were laser scribing and sampling studies. Marc K coordinated, evaluated what
customers were doing. We not 8 hr. High volume terminology discussion. Big open faced
samplers.
With that style used for either breathing zone or area sample, 300 l/minute flow rate.
Recalibrated vacuum cleaner.
Old data, could pull a big chunk of lint off of something. If took bz sample, hold the face
sideways, wuld get a big rock or chip on it otherwise, didn't want to pick that up. Phased
out in 95 and 96. Some facilities still use them today. As long as you look at the filter to
see if got a chunk, not that common.
He did a paper in 2001, he went through all the sampling techniques, all other than the
CFM one, which wasn't being used at the time. There are called Gas pumps. If short
duration sample, 15 minutes, its probably high volume methods that Marc K was talking
about.
Putting a metalized coating, laser is the part. Three types, do electroplating, spray, roll
and plate. Metalizing and plating. They are all done.
Laser scribing, hadn't done for some time.
2 to 4 years? Since. Sold laser this year, stopped using in any prod volume at least one
year ago, summer of 05.
Some periods were got more intense. Don't know production levels. Periods got more
intense, more of a focus on lowering of emissions. Around 85 and 86. Got first case in
84. That was a wakeup call.
Another one around 96, after completion of the Elmore study, probably happened around
96 he thinks. Big focus. Other transition in 99, put whole facility into respirators and
other work practices. Didn't have enough faith in purely engineering controls.
Can give the exact month --
Continually doing surveillance monitoring
Lot of areas fall under .2 action level for Be but can't be confident that might not have a
leak in ventialation or power system. Keep in respirators. Not usual to have exposres over
.2. Someone changes their work practices??
Small presses were enclosed in late 90s, Always had ventilation. Originally had kind of a
downdraft right next to pressing part and backdraft, and then helped close it up some
without big change to ventilation then pretty much closed in late 90s.
Large presses could not be as easy as for small presses, not that much of a concern.
Enclosed the lapping, in 2002 or so, maybe 2003.
Hindsight is that lapping didn't cause airborne particulate, not filtering fluids and
migrating standpoint. Never had high air levels.
Occasional high random air level. Get that fluid dirty.
Also went to oil based lapping fluid. That was??
Water based fluid allowed it to be entrained, that was sometime after the enclosure.
Talkig to their customers about going to oil-based system. All recirculated all that much.
Customers will dedicate one lapper to BeO products.
Stuff people equipment, didn't have a good handle housekeeping in that process at the
time.
In a room, is the enclosure. Then went step further, went to level of PPE. Transition zone,
put on cernek suit, galoshes,
Do customers tend to isolate this type of operation. Customers probably not doing the
same scale operation. Some things they are receptive to putting water resistant apron on
workers that they can throw away. If effort to come here, customers are receptive.
They assess customer operations, control process, keep from getting off people, keep out
of lungs. Varies, depends on what they are doing.
BdeO mainly doing assembly, not many o;perations.
MB recommends good housekeeping exposures.
So many ways to do controls. If have BeO piece, if score to cut or break, can do it in a
hood, or hold under water and have done same thing, except created water. If they can
tell them the way to do it that doesn't involved ventilation, they'll recommend easiest
way.
Recommend away from some operations, easy ways to solve things.
Why is it burring in the first place? To customers. Change upstream stuff so not burring
and no machining is necessary.
Material preparation from drum tipper to vacuum lance system??
No dust explosion worries with BeO.
Working on material prep right now. Engineerings.
Samples are now all outside respirator.
January 2, 1999, went to full respirator use. Before it was task based, known hazards for
certain areas or potential issue. Like changing ghe powder drum. Needed a respirator,
needed to have it one.
Three times per day wipe downs (December 2000).
Optimized nozzle configuration and change to production scheduling.
Spray nozzle, atomizes the solution, has to be nitrogen, just air. Goes through an
atomizer, its not really compressed. Just air. Not nitrogen I don't think??
If taking a small laser bore, take some powder, poured down, fills a tube, tube is put into
isopress, isopress maks it out. Work is in a hood when he is interfacing with this.
As soon as one comes out of isopress, brings a finished piece
Don't let stuff dry, don't take out of the area, don't lean up again.
Keep be in process stuff failed, we keep it in the area. Didn't have all those layers of ppe
before.
Clear differences when maching BeOO vs metal. Metal is a lot easirer, alloy tends to be
differentl Mark Hoover at HIO
Typically machining with the alloys, you're not going to get much exposure. Green
machining, presintered Some machining on green machining.
Never send out green parts.
Outside of BSW and American Berylia, anybody else doing green machining. MK can't
remember what AB is doing.
Had had an operation. Changed number.
Some do machining, some do
Sintering is actually fusing the BeO.
When sintering you are activating the binders.
Marc K did a study on metallizing on losses.
Did ddetermine there was some loss of BeO.
Ten or twenty years for , this not routine maintenance activities.
Still under the surveillance model, get once a year and various samples moved around the
plant. Tom is still available.
For last ten years has been surveillance, 6 samplers. Enough data to stop certain ones
every month and be confident they won't bump up.
Admin workers into production areas, might have been earlier than 99. Lunch room got
sepg
Completed physical separation aadmin and production in 1999. Air showers were
installed around 1999.
Kilns, be-exposure controls, no be specific exhaust. Was to not break parts.
Kilns get rebuilt sometimes. Kilns more often than the furnaces. ??plant person
Kay Kriess paper on 96, is it okay to say its Brush. Ask Marc K??
Use 1999 as turning point for PPE and major changes.
Just gone into respirators in 99/2000. Right after they went into respirators. Paper
published . Particle size stuff didn't matter in Tucson. Mass reduction kind of worked
whereas , size distribution was uniform over entire plant. More similar materials here so
all uniform. So particle size didn't matter here. If reduce mass you reduce risk,
essentially.
Be management plan developed out of stuff we learned here. KIOP model not in place
back then. KIOP was invented in Elmore.
Production went down more to work practice and less to engineering controls. Refining
work practices was more important. Were mistakes. Added waters to some of the hoods
to let people perform better.
Keep It Off People. I think
Levels of controls for customers.
Customers do polishing and sanding, which we don't do here .Also do lapping. They do
things to make sure equipment is clean. Blue paper in 80s.
Laser bores, and sell 4x4 sq of BeO and they polish and sell to someone else.
Dice it up, cut it up, put some metalization on it. Several downstream customers. Get
special orders.
Complex machining, it's a job shop, if weird shape, goes to complex machining. It's a
department that's a precision machine shops. Various depts. Under the complex
machining department, is kind of the random part for whatever the jobs are. Have most
concerns about production levels, lots of scrap generated, first time we're making it often.
Have to have some portable ventilation systems in there. Workers have to be proactive in
there.
Once-a year make a crucible for furnaces.
Don't envision downstream customers to do this complex machining or unique product
stuff.
Extrusion, how do you rehydrate? Lubricitiy, squeeze it through a dye just for the
process. Use sponges and such to clean up.
They sell ventilation for lapping machines although BW doesn't have one. Somebody
makes one.
Don't do any taping here. Kind of an extrusion. Was formed onto a kind of a die slot.
This uniform shape. We dind't invent that process. Somebody does it in the US. Taping.
QC, there are functions in every department. Have whole inspection dept,
inspection/packaging. Test a few or weigh a few and then ship 100.
Health system management approach was around 1999/2000. 2001 was actually rolled
out to the facilities. Use 2001 for that. Injuries start to fall around that time.
Just different temps and time, for sintering and kilns.
Wet hydrogen process, just heating up stuff so that it sticks to or activating the binder in
the process. For a particulate release standpoint, kilns, vent them all to atmostphere, don't
run through filters, no particulate, really just vents.
Bent over backwards to show that no particulate releases.
Not sure still make ignition module.
(3/4)" circle is small press. Keep upping the big press tonnage. 150 or something.
Mechanical tonnage.
Could set up a conf call to follow up on this stuff.
Mandatory skin protection, not when resprirators, wearing gloves when handing
respirators went into effect in 2002.
People got Be on skin by tying shoes and attaching a cloth belt on the respirator. Changes
respirator belts. Going to slipon shoes. Elmore is doing the same thing.
Skin protection stuff had a lot to do with getting people to be cognizant about
contamination.
Haven't realy demonstrated skin exposure concept is right.
Green machining -- Got impression there wasn't ventilation.
Unfired parts, just pressed or sintered. Not hardened. Some of the complex parts and
some of the laser. What percentage of production is green machined??
When send it out of here, it is fired?
If somebody wanted to do buy something green, they might sell it but would check on
applications.
Pressure wash the inside of thespray drying unit. Before would go in with a scraper. Now
it's a wet process, damp it down, collect it down.
All lasers are 100% green machined, and then post fired machining too. All of our
complex product is post fired machining. Half of our production is lasers, Lasers weigh a
lot. In material, about half of material goes into lasers. Green machining is all dry with
point ventilation. Hasn't changed over the years. Is there a close pickup and a larger
pickup. Smaller pickup at the tool bit and larger pickup. Before 81 only had close capture
pickup.
Don't do a lot of wet wiping of hands. But won't see a whole lot. He likes wipes. Might
put more into place here.
These workers have very clean hands, less than a microgram, if its detectable. If goal is to
keep it off the person, we're doing good.
Most is task based stuff is pre96
Some of the task data, after tom left, has questions about methodology. 2001 on, did do
some task base stuff for projects.
Some govt projects dropped off sharply over 2002 or so. Gradually working back down
Production tends to influence or has potential to influence exposures.
Containment of lapping probably didn't reduce the air exposures much at all. Can't really
say that controls accomplished the goal of lowering emissions. A subtle distinction but
important point.
MK Swouldn't expect engineering controls to have done that much. Some from work
practices maybe. Wouldn't really think it was all that different. MK was only looking at
older data and didn't see the trend really through about 2002 or 03 or so.
Wasn't as clean today as had been before.
Nothing in his mind MK that sticks out as needing to be addressed.l
Ken Johnson? Production manager
Sales is public. Pounds is public.
Late 2000, enclosed lapping, Based on Ken arriving in June 2001.
Went from no filtration to .. to eventually a good filtration system.
When did we vacuum out drums, prior to 2001.
1994 to 2004.
2000 sales 21 million and 75000 lbs of beo
2001 sales 15 million and 49000 lbs
2002 sales 11 million and 48000
2003 sales 12 million and 33000 lbs
2004 sales 13.5 and 45000
2005 sales 10.5 million and 33000
2006 sales annualized 12 million and 40000 lbs.
Business segments are all over the place. Telecom crashed. Kyosera said don't make
parts for us anymore.
Our boom, competitor closed in 99,
ABI, old American Beryllia Inc.
Before that they were national beryllia, ??
Sales doubled overnight. National beryllia closed and some of people involved started
back up. Had some old assets, sitting around for 3 years. Now ABI is literally eight
people and a couple of customers.
Consolidated Beryllium Ltd in UK. Some kind of facility here in US but Ken wasn't sure
about anything. We're the only beryllium oxide powder handling except ABI. They buy
400 or 500 lbs ever 6 months. CBL is maybe one half of our production.
BeO China can do everything we do. Do they compete? Their own military. Also very
small scale, thermal conductivity, Chinese. India, not aware of them doing anything-MK.
Ken agreed. CBL and ABI do green machining.
Firing in air or not in air, atmosphere. Sintering is done in air fired kilns, pusher or box
kilns. Sintering in air fired kilns. Take green ceramic body and sinter into fired ceramic
body, 17% reduction. Pusher kiln is continuous, push through the hot zone. Box kiln is
used for large products, lasers, large prouct.s
Pusher is small stuff, high volume. Box is batch process and pusher is continuous. Sagers
are aluminum boxes. Just rows and rows of these little parts. TKs, tunnel kilns
Firing of metalization is hydrogen and nitrogen, various ratios, only batch kilns, done at
atmosphere. No high volume metalization, tough to push through so batch. Have been to
tunnel kiln metalization.
Also nckel sintering, after metalization,
Application of a metallic layer to the ceramic. Ceramic doesn't conduct, apply layer of
metal to allow attach something. Molymagnese mixture, we paint it on. Not very high
tech at all. Fire it in hydrogen and nitrogen to reduce it, make sure it doesn't oxidize
(would if did this in air). So now have this dense layer, then it gets nickel plated. Just a
moly layer is worthless. End goal is to apply a brazable surface.
Most customers will apply own metalizing and then nickel plate it themselves too. Sell
more bare ceramic than anything.
How often do we rebuild. TK rebuild every 5 years. B atch kilns do 400 or 500 runs easy.
Do 50 or 60 runs per year. Metalizing furnaces, about 5 years to rebuild. Same for
Air batch kilns have 15, includeing small test kilns then 17. Metalization have two batch
kilns. Lot of maint on atmostphere furnaces.
The big kiln room and the small kiln room. Probably firing room is the big kiln room.
Customer might want aq product lapped because they want a rough surface or something
else. Ppump in abrasive media and it grinds the media off. Its all programmable.
Tape sleeves. Slide shows of PPE improvements and of the lapping machine enclosure.
85 people now, going up to 90 by the end of the year.
45 to 50 is production. 80% of workforce is doing something on the floor. 2nd is a couple
and third shift is 10. Now we're 24/7.
Afternoon
Dross separate
1998 was when vacuum system was installed in
Material preparation
Sandblasting done with alumina oxide, high purity
Discussion of whether meaningful to pursue utilization number
Ceramic customers
102 ceramic customers
most aren't doing anything with it, just installing it.
Wireless, more important in wireless
Base stations, towers. Really not used in cell phones themselves for quite a while,
replaced soon.
Laser customers, entertainment apps have gone down but medical applications have
increased pretty dramatically. Lasers in medical industry have gotten more use.
Electronics markets are stil consistent with what we had, resistor cores,auto ignition
system has been phased out, no ceramics any more, heat sinks for satellites, overall
numbers are pretty consistent with the mix.
Anybody down stream from these customers doing anything other than installation. All
real ceramic work is within this first level of sales. People do assembly downstream only.
Not even exposed to people. Also often surface metalized so not direct contact into many
of these first customers. All electronic contacts must be insulated so more of an electrical
shorting concern.
Do customers pass along that there is beryllium in there. Some label materials as BE
containing. No protocol or unwritten rule aobout this. There is no standard although a lot
of companies started marking.
We know every bay stations, never reach the public. No consumer products at all, no
grand volume at all. Motorola goes through atrouble o take I out.
Even portable defibrillators are recycled. We are formally in AED that market. Want to re
All print circuits on them
Very few do machining
None in wireless or laser and mayber just section that takes large substrates, print circuits.
Do lapping and polishing, there are three houses that do that. And 2 major and 3 or small
ones machining houses. They buy a b lock of BeO ad they will machine into a rod, rod
goes into a satellite. Provide customer with a quick prototype. We here want multiyear
order, not as nimble as customers who provide quick turnaround.
CBL doesn't handle powder in the UK. Universities also buy some.
2 manuf in china and kazahstan. 3rd one in China getting powder from another one.
Big ones are San Jose Delta in Santa , Ed Flaherty and then other Accuratus, in New
Jersey and main contact is Raymond tsao.
They could help us with these contacts, to clear the way. Smaller guys are in NY, hybrid
tech and hybrid sources, ones in florida and in California. Don't do a lot. Limited in what
they do. Laser machine houses, and dicing houses, in Portland LPT and ALT and PM
industries. Litton would buy , Litton will spec it, Accuracus will make the rod that Litton
speced. Milit contractors might do metallization but not any machining.
BeO Silicacarbide market. Requires a hot press, BeoSic, Silica carbide.Used for tuning of
radar systems. Not a huge market, overall is maybe a $1 million per year. Goes right into
applications for this market as well, wouldn't be manufacruing or machining further.
So 5 additional customers, in military market, Raython, Boeing Lockheed, Northrup, L3
is the old Litton. BWI also sells to these companies essentially so not entirely new
additional markets.
Sales guy was Lee Vandermark.
JR Massey
Transcription of walkthrough notes
Machining room, some interlocked marchines and some that allowed workers to peek in
to see that things were working right. Also an ultrasound cleaning station, all machining
is enclosed. Wet machining only here, not any green machining.
Fabricate a plexi cover for one machine, took $400-$500 in plexiglass and about two
days of work. If contractor abobut $1,200.
150 cfm face velocity.
Exhaust velocity depends on size of things etc
Have 62000 cfm for plant. Had 40k unit, then added 15 k then added 7 k. Also have a
portable unit we saw later hooked up to the Haas. Also dryer units
Complex area, similar machines. Some are manually operated.
Isopress-pressure all around
Guy wore extra purple smock in isopress. Laser area.
Worked on stuff within lab hood. Could see like splash of powder as her worked to top
off the cyclinder.
Takes apron off when goes to lunch. Something about reminders about how the guy is
supposed to look.
CO2 laser scribing used to be done where the Haas machine is now.
Have pre-WWII machine grinder-Blanchard
Extruded product-Make long rods then fired and then brought back for more work. Some
connection to complex machining
Valve system on extruder. Start with powder bottles.
Booties to go into material prep
Material prep: Small opening to vacuum out.
6 barrels in box
7 4 batches in 2 weeks of powder, 1600 lbs. 5 to 10 minutes to do it in empty the
container with a lance. The drums are 45 gallon overpacked into 55 gallon drums.
Operator manipulates lance whole time he is standing there with one quadrant of the
four quadrants open. Looked like they only put one in there at a time. They then add
water and various additives
Have openings on the top of some of the containers to add stuff.
Keep it mixing or it hardens like concrete.
Then smash down to size they want.
Have a Vibratory E Mixer
More additives and then to spray dryer. Some
Most of the batches are made the same way. A few require different stuff. Spray dryer
cleaned out couple times a week. 1.5 year ago chanes the way they cleaned it out.
Now wet down and then hose down with water spray. Get most of it out. Still have to
use a tool to push some stuff out of the bottom. Bad stuff put back into mix and rest
into bottles for use in the process.
Pressure wash in spray dryer. All done ffrom top.
Goes to one of four places, small or large press, isopress, extrusion.
15 to 30 minutes to clean spray dryer in full tyvec.
Pressing 2-3 people on small and 1-2 in large presses. Lots of small presses but each
operator does several. 1 person on haas machine.
Mop and clean every shift.
1 month, all production shutdown.
Every safety meeting has reminders about cleanliness
From small press to kiln to be fired.
Large press had a deduster, a downdraf through a carpet like piece with holes in it.
Some refinements only in last few years to large press.
If were to do more-would put the whole thing in its own room.
Not large air particle counts here. Operator cleans up if much dust. If 2 presses run by
1 operator, if need to. Running 24-7 on presses now, big demand.
Haas not running yet.
Add small portable unit fo Haas. Plyovent MultiFume Caddy. Portable vent unit
CNC for complex parts especially
Packaging- Weight under hood with backdraft. 100 cfm/face, all in press room is
packaging location.
Sample kilns there too
Sometimes in inspection
If don't empty bags slowly or if some dust on parts then can get exposures in
packaging. Seemed like relatively high area.
They have hoods for inspection but operators have to stand and they didn't like that
so much. Work mostly at sitting tables. Have little red screen thing that allows them
to see both sides for a lot of units at one time. Then flip it over .
Laser-Isopress area. Pressed without heat in isopress
CIP at ELMORE CIP and HIP.
Huge then at Elmore of different name but it's the same thing.
Little powder burst but ventilation get its >When he gets cyclinder full then turns and
puts into isopress. Each cycle takes as long as to get fil next cylinder.
Get new rags now, heard Mike Talking about it.
Grinding going wet enclosed surface grind.
Another enclosed grinding wheel.
Another ultrasonic laser drill
Enclosed.
Grinding out diameter
Like other enclosed grinder. Hard to
Only 1 isopress
This is green machining right behind the isopress.
Have 2 lathes, 2 grinders, get higher air count in green machining, not done wet.
Have white tubes, high velocity. High velocity is fixed to machine, not really moved
around.
Kiln room
After made, they are fired.
Sagger, aluminum atrays. Large and small boxes.
Kiln people only load and unload. Seems different from what we wrote where thought
some of press people loaded too.
3 kiln operators. 1 to load and 1 t ohandle other kilns. 4-5 people during the week.
There are not special atmosphere kilns. Draft is partly for odor control.
Rectangular flow for one tunnel kiln.
Some put into water and tumble small parts to get rough edge off. Air counts in kiln
are low.
Vent kilns to atmosphere, but very little emissions.
If was dust would be due to break or friction.
Lapper enclosed
2 rooms of lapping. 3 small and 2 big lappes. Were lappers in extruding in the past
Separate air conditioning in lapping. No ventil;ation though.
Sometimes
Go next to cleaning. Clean them in lapping. Then to inspection and packaging.
Sandblast only for mistakes and for a few customer specifications.
Aluminate nitrate
When lapping runs into not fully enclosed.
Production control offices.
Packaging and shipping is on the clean side.
Have a passthrough window from production.
Pkg has been mainly placing in plant
Were also handling parts in the plant.
Been like this for 6 or 7 years.
Everything here is wrapped up already before it gets to packaging and shipping.
Bubble wrap again in shipping
Customers shouldn't get white powder. If they do they call and complain.
Have passthrough windown, door on each side.
Pusher kiln crew. Break rod
Also sort of a storage area
Some of this bulding was added in 85.
Not only station for worker
Extruder people to do this
Back for extrusion
Extrusion, cut to length and make resistor cords
Put some rods on hot plate and cover with hot wax, then cut to length.
Air count is hight if do wipe sample of air ducts in extruding. Mike didn't really
know why.
Maybe when clean extruder unit.
Extrusion is 2-3 people, 3, with inspector counted. That's Marcia whose desk was
behind some stuff
Clean extrude when need to .
Set extruder takes time to set up and then want to run it for awhile.
Wax, ;l ooked like grease
Comparator, inspection tool looked like a big submarine radar scope
3 separate areas for inspection
In plant
Have emergency response team and incident commanders .
Small kiln room
4 more batch periodic kilns.
Big kiln room
Extrusion look like types of pasta
Decont garage. Make it visible clean. Disdained particle counts.
All ventilation outside of building has secondary heaps.
The dust collector change is always a full powered respirator job.
1 time every 6 months for the drums at the end. The drums in the middle don't need
to be emptied very often.
8 people in the maitenance department, couning everybody.