Date:	March 6, 2013

Subject:           Development of Background Information on Proposed
Area Source Emissions

                        Limit - Determination of GACT for Wool
Fiberglass Furnaces at Area Sources

	EPA Contract No. EP-D-11-084; EPA Work Assignment No. 1-07

	RTI Project No. 0213199.001.07

From: 		Cindy Hancy

		Dave Reeves

To: 		Susan Fairchild, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

I.  Introduction

Section 112(k) of the Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to develop standards for area sources which
account for 90 percent of the emissions in urban areas of the 33 urban
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) listed in EPA’s Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy.  These area source standards can require emission
control levels that are equivalent to generally achievable control
technology (GACT) for affected sources.  For the development of area
source standards, GACT is meant to include methods, practices and
techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for
application by the sources in the category considering economic impacts
and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the
emissions control systems.

The purpose of this memorandum is to describe how GACT was determined
for glass-melting furnaces, which is the affected source for the
proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Area Sources.  In the
development of the residual risk and technology review of the major
source NESHAP for wool fiberglass manufacturing (Subpart NNN), the
industry trade association (NAIMA) and EPA sent information requests to
all major and area source wool fiberglass facilities and had several
meetings with industry regarding current practices at wool fiberglass
plants. Because of the large number of emission test reports and other
documents reviewed, and the fact that most documents included
information claimed as confidential business information (CBI), the
specific references for the test data are not listed in this memorandum.
 However, a summary of the test reports and all of the other documents
that were used in the analysis of GACT, other than those that were
claimed to be CBI, can be found in the docket.

II. Glass-melting Furnaces

Glass-melting furnaces vary according to size, design, fuel source, raw
material mixtures, melting times and methods of heat application.
Glass-melting furnaces can be electric steel shell, cold top electric,
air-gas, oxyfuel, or combinations of gas and electric. There are two
types of electric furnaces currently used in the wool fiberglass
industry: electric steel shell and cold top electric. There are two
types of gas-fired glass-melting furnaces: air-gas, and oxy-fuel.  There
may also be combinations of gas fired and electric furnaces (known as
‘electric boost’) in operation. About 80 percent of the
glass-melting furnaces used in the wool fiberglass industry are electric
(e.g., steel shell or cold-top) and about 20 percent are gas-fired
(e.g., air gas or oxy-fuel).

⁰ F.

⁰ F. inside the furnace) than air gas furnaces (2400⁰ F), whose
temperatures are reduced by the dilution of oxygen in the outside air.

III.  Existing Glass-melting Furnace Emission Controls

The type of control device used to control particulate matter (PM)
emissions varies by furnace type. Electric steel shell furnaces use a
baghouse and/or fabric filter; cold top electric furnaces use batch
wetting as the method of PM control. Air-gas furnaces currently use a
combination of electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and baghouses; oxyfuel
furnaces use an ESP only (with one oxyfuel furnace using a scrubber
along with an ESP). Figure 1 shows PM emission rates by control device
for all furnaces in the wool fiberglass manufacturing source category
that submitted PM data.

IV.  Glass-Melting Furnace Emissions

Chromium Emissions

Wool fiberglass Manufacturing is being listed as an area source category
based on emissions of chromium compounds.  In the development of the
residual risk and technology review of Subpart NNN (for major sources),
the industry trade association (NAIMA) and EPA received emissions
information from the majority of all major and area source wool
fiberglass facilities. The EPA evaluated chromium emissions data for
major and area source glass-melting furnaces and analyzed the
operational differences of the different types of glass-melting
furnaces.  The EPA found that electric furnaces (electric steel shell
and cold-top electric) do not have the potential to emit chromium at the
levels of gas-fired furnaces, and that chromium emissions from electric
furnaces are about 2 orders of magnitude lower than the chromium
emissions from gas-fired furnaces as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1. Furnace PM Emission Rate by Control Device

Figure 2.  Chromium Compounds Emission Rates by Furnace Type

This higher chromium emission potential for gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces is due to differences in design and operation of gas-fired
glass-melting furnaces compared to electric glass-melting furnaces.
Although all glass-melting furnaces are constructed using chromium
refractories at and below the line of contact defined by the refractory
wall and the molten glass within the glass-melting furnace (the
glass/metal line), oxy-fuel and some air gas glass-melting furnaces have
other glass-melting furnace parts constructed using chromium
refractories, such as the crown, sidewalls, front wall, back wall, and
forehearth. The use of chromium refractories above the melt line is
necessary to obtain the desired furnace life and reduce the necessity
for hot repairs of the furnace. When the hot, corrosive and reactive
gases of a gas-fired glass-melting furnace come in contact with the high
chromium refractories lining the area above the glass melt in high
temperature glass-melting furnaces, the chromium is available to be
oxidized and converted into its hexavalent form.

◦ to 4,500◦F, while the temperatures in electric glass-melting
furnaces are less than 300⁰ F. Due to their higher operating
temperatures, gas-fired glass-melting furnaces are constructed using
chromium refractories at various parts of the glass-melting furnace that
are above the molten glass, including the crown. Chromium refractories
may contain over 90% chrome bearing compounds, specifically, chomite ore
(as Cr2O3) and chromic oxide (as Cr3O4). The use of chromium
refractories above the glass melt line and corrosivity due to thermal
and chemical degradation of the furnace interior contribute to the
greater potential for gas-fired furnaces to chromium compounds.

Studies indicate that, under normal industrial temperatures and
oxidizing conditions, trivalent chromium, which is present in the
refractory, oxidizes readily to its hexavalent state.1

Additionally, while the degradation of the glass-melting furnace
refractory indicates increasing chromium emissions, that process does
not necessarily follow a normal and predictable pattern. The degradation
of refractories within the glass-melting furnace is a function of
numerous factors, including temperature, time, stress, and the composite
effects of aging and creep response. These processes are highly
nonlinear, so the traditional equations that assume steady-state
deformation rates are not appropriate.2 We have also found that as the
refractories of the gas-fired glass-melting furnaces degrade, the
chromium of those refractories at and above the metal/glass line is
emitted as particulate to the outside air. Chromium from the
refractories below the metal/glass line is absorbed into the molten
glass and becomes vitrified with the other raw minerals. Industry
commented that refractory loss from degradation of the refractory walls
in use is approximately 20,000 pounds of refractory annually.3 When that
loss occurs below the glass melt line, it is believed to be incorporated
into the molten glass. When that loss occurs above the glass melt line,
it is emitted from the furnace. While existing air pollution controls
achieve reductions in the total PM, a greater fraction of that PM
consists of chromium in the gas fired furnaces than exists in the
electric furnaces, and have been measured from gas-fired furnaces at
over 500 pounds per year. Therefore, additional chromium reductions for
gas-fired furnaces in this particular industry are needed.

EPA has learned that if a source of reasonably priced industrial-grade
oxygen is available, the oxyfuel glass-melting furnace is the design
favored for use by glass manufacturers due to the glass-melting
furnace’s low NOx emissions, low energy demands per volume output of
glass, and extended furnace life span. The low NOx emissions of an
oxy-fuel glass-melting furnace result from the fact that no air (which
contains nitrogen) is introduced into the high temperature zone above
the glass melt. Instead, the oxy-fuel glass-melting furnace design mixes
the natural gas fuel with pure oxygen for combustion, thus reducing NOx
emissions.

In the 1999 Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing NESHAP (subpart NNN), EPA
promulgated emission limits for PM (0.5 lb PM per ton of glass pulled)
as a surrogate for metal HAP emitted from glass-melting furnaces. The
rationale for this surrogacy is that the metal HAP are contained (in
trace amounts) in the PM, and that the PM control devices remove metal
HAP with the same efficiency as they remove total PM.  Therefore, a
limit on PM also creates equivalent control of the metal HAP.

IV.  Technical Basis For Setting Emissions Limits For Both PM And
Chromium for Gas Fired Furnaces

We continue to believe that PM is an appropriate surrogate for metal HAP
for electric glass-melting furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing
facilities. The EPA may use a surrogate to regulate HAP if there is
reasonable basis to do so.  We have used PM as a surrogate to regulate
hazardous pollutants because: “(1) HAP metals are invariably present .
. . in PM;” (2) “PM Control technology indiscriminately captures HAP
metals along with other particulates;” and (3) “PM control is the
only means by which facilities achieve reduction in HAP metal
emissions.” National Lime v. EPA, 233 F.3d at 639.  We have also
always reasoned that “[i]f HAP metals are invariably present in ...PM,
then even if the ratio of metals to PM is small and variable, or simply
unknown, PM is a reasonable surrogate for the metals-assuming ... that
PM control technology indiscriminately captures HAP metals along with
other particulates.” Id. Additionally, we believe that PM controls are
still effective for chromium emissions at the same efficiency as total
PM and other metal HAP.  However, we believe that in the case of
gas-fired furnaces a separate chromium limit is necessary in order to
insure control of chromium emissions.

In general, the PM emissions from glass-melting furnaces result from the
entrainment of small particles of the feed in the exhaust gas.  The feed
materials going into the furnace contain trace amounts of chromium and
other HAP metals.  Therefore, the resulting PM also contains HAP metals
(including chromium) in trace amounts.  However, there is also a second
particulate source which is the refractory above the glass melt line of
the furnace. Due to the chemical and thermal properties of the gases, a
corrosive environment exists within a gas-fired furnace. This causes
erosion of the refractory lining of the furnace, which releases
chromium-bearing refractory particles into the furnace exhaust gas as
PM.

All electric furnaces are lined with chromium refractories at and below
the glass melt line. The chromium refractory in an electric furnace
extends up to two inches above the melt. Gas-fired furnaces may
construct the entire furnace (crown, sidewalls, front and back walls,
forehearth, etc.) from chromium refractories. In the case of gas-fired
furnaces, the refractory does not contain chromium in trace amounts,
rather chromium compounds make up a significant portion of the
refractory composition above the glass melt line.  This results in
gas-fired furnaces emitting particulate that contains chromium in larger
amounts than that of electric furnaces. Based on our dataset, chromium
constitutes an average of 0.96 percent of PM emissions for gas-fired
furnaces, which is 13 times higher than the average for electric
furnaces (0.07 percent of PM emissions are chromium).

As an example, if a furnace is emitting 100 pounds per year (lb/yr) of
uncontrolled PM and has a 99.9 percent efficient control device; assume
that total metal HAP are about 1 percent of the uncontrolled PM, and
chromium makes up 10 percent of the metal HAP.  Controlled PM emissions
would be 0.10 lb/yr of PM, and controlled chromium emissions would be
0.0001 lb/yr. However, if the 100 lb/yr of PM came from the chrome
refractory located above the glass melt line, the chromium content might
be as high as 50 percent of the PM.  This would result in the same level
of controlled PM emissions, 0.10 lb/yr, but controlled chromium
emissions of 0.05 lb/yr. This is a 500 fold increase in chromium
emissions but no increase in total PM emissions.

Because chromium compounds are a significant component of the refractory
used above the glass melt line, a greater potential for chromium
emissions exists, which is not associated with a commensurate increase
in emissions of other HAP metals.  Historical test data show there can
be a delay in the increase of chromium emissions due to the wear of the
furnace refractory. Table 1 shows measured total chromium emissions over
one campaign of a single oxyfuel furnace. The emissions testing
conducted in 2010 for the furnace summarized in Table 1 showed that 93
percent of the chromium was in the hexavalent state (i.e., Cr+6).
Because the increase in chromium emissions may occur as a result of
numerous variables, and may be closely related to specific furnace
design and maintenance elements, we believe it is appropriate to set a
chromium limit in addition to the PM limit.

Table 1. Summary of Chromium Emissions from 2004 – 2010

Year	Chromium Emissions from Highest Emitting Glass-Melting Furnace

at permitted production rate, pounds per year

2004	<5

2005	30

2008	114

2010	540

Additionally, emissions testing conducted at wool fiberglass furnaces
raise pollutant-specific issues.  Emissions test data for glass-melting
furnaces at wool fiberglass manufacturing facilities indicated that the
phenomena discussed above can result in emissions levels of chromium up
to 50 lb/year, and in one case as high as 540 lb/year from gas-fired
furnaces, while emissions from electric furnaces at similar PM emissions
levels are below 5 lb/year. Table 2 shows a comparison of the average
and maximum total chromium emissions between electric and gas-fired
glass-melting furnaces. Chromium has been identified as one of the urban
air toxics based on its prevalence and toxicity in urban areas.

Table 2. Average Annual Total Chromium Emissions for Glass-melting
Furnaces1

	Average  Chromium Emissions per Furnace (lb/yr)	Maximum  Chromium
Emissions from a Furnace (lb/yr)

Electric Furnaces 	0.38	1.7

Gas-fired Furnaces	42	540

Based on furnaces for which PM and chromium emissions testing was
submitted

In lieu of setting both a PM and chromium limit, we considered setting a
chromium limit alone. However, for all the reasons noted above (i.e. the
fact that the PM controls are still effective, but the chromium content
of the particulate is increased) we believe it would be difficult to
improve the efficiency of the PM controls to meet a chromium limit based
on GACT.

We also note that the control technology that would be required to meet
the proposed chromium emissions limit is a packed bed sodium hydroxide
(NaOH) scrubber. However, this type of control is not effective in
reducing PM emissions. Therefore, in establishing only a chromium limit,
PM emissions (and thus emissions of other HAP metals) would be left
essentially uncontrolled.

V. Determination of GACT for Glass-Melting Furnaces

In order to set PM and chromium emission control levels that are
equivalent to GACT, the EPA evaluated the methods, practices and
techniques that are commercially available for gas-fired glass-melting
furnaces. As shown in Figure 1, most gas-fired furnaces use an ESP
and/or baghouse to control PM and chromium emissions.  The basic
approach to determining GACT was to evaluate the available data on
controlled emissions from gas-fired glass- melting furnaces and then
determine the control levels that appear to be generally available for
reducing emissions of chromium and PM from gas-fired furnaces.  Test
data from facility emission test reports were compiled into a
spreadsheet and sorted by pollutant and furnace type. Figure 2 shows the
emission rate test data that were provided by facilities for chromium
compounds.

EPA reviewed these data and then used production data for each furnace
to estimate the annual PM and chromium compound emissions. There are no
differences between furnaces located at area sources and major sources.
The reason is that the differences between major and area sources relate
to emissions from the binding process, not to emissions or emissions
controls on the furnaces. Therefore we looked to the entire data set to
develop options for GACT.

In the case of PM we evaluated several options as potential GACT. The
first option was 0.33 pounds PM per ton of glass pulled This are the
same PM limit proposed for major source furnaces as a result of
technology review performed under 112(d)(6). Given the fact that major
and area source furnaces are no different, this was a logical option to
evaluate and we believe represents the least stringent option we should
consider. This level would result in no costs or emission reductions
because all furnaces currently meet this limit. However, this limit
would codify the current level of PM emissions and prevent any future PM
emissions increase.

We also looked evaluated potentially lower limits as GACT. These were
0.2, 0.1, and 0.05 lb PM/ton, and at a level of control equal to MACT of
0.0093 lb/ton glass for existing sources and 0.0018 lb/ton glass for new
sources. At these levels 5 to 12 furnaces would have to invest in
additional add-on PM emissions control. We estimate these costs would
exceed $50,000 per ton of PM reduction for the first three options. In
the case of the MACT floor levels of control, the cost of PM reductions
would be $480,000 per ton PM removal ($200,000 per furnace for a total
of $2,400,000 for 12 furnaces that currently do not meet the limit to
remove five tons of PM annually). These cost effectiveness values are
significantly higher than any the Agency has accepted as reasonable for
PM.

For chromium the first GACT option evaluated was 0.00006 lb/ton glass
pulled. As was the case with the PM limit, this is the same chromium
limit proposed for major source furnaces as a result of technology
review performed under 112(d)(6). There are three area source gas-fired
furnaces that currently do not meet the proposed GACT for chromium.
However, data are available for industries with similar control
requirements that demonstrate that there are effective chromium control
technologies available. We searched other industries for controls that
would remove chromium and found that a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) scrubber
is used in both high temperature metallurgical industries and in the
chromium electroplating industry for removal of hexavalent chromium.
Based on the effectiveness of this technology on to two different types
of exhaust gas streams, we believe this control technology is
transferable to wool fiberglass furnaces. Though there are currently no
NaOH scrubbers applied in the wool fiberglass industry, there is
currently one gas-fired furnace equipped with a PM control followed by a
wet scrubber for SO2 control. This is directly analogous to using a NaOH
wet scrubber downstream of the PM controls to achieve additional
chromium removal.

Assuming that the facilities not currently meeting the proposed chromium
emission limit opted to use the NaOH scrubbers to achieve compliance,
the cost of the proposed chromium emissions limit is $7,600 per pound of
chromium. This is a reasonable cost given that chromium is an urban air
toxic and that a significant portion of the chromium emitted from
gas-fired glass-melting furnaces is hexavalent chromium, which is
extremely toxic and carcinogenic even in low amounts. We note that we
found $11,000 per pound chromium removed to be a reasonable cost in the
final Chromium Electroplating RTR rulemaking, where we regulated
chromium compounds (77 FR 59220, September 19, 2012).

For chromium we evaluated a MACT floor level emissions limit of 0.000022
pounds (lb) of chromium compounds per ton of glass pulled (0.022 lb per
thousand tons glass pulled) for new and existing sources. In this case
of the MACT floor levels of control, the cost per pound of chromium
removed would be $34,400 annually ($250,000 for 10 furnaces that
currently do not meet the limit to remove 75 pounds of chromium
compounds annually). Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of achieving the
chromium emissions levels would be about five times higher than the
first option GACT standard which we are proposing. These cost
effectiveness values are significantly higher than any the Agency has
accepted as reasonable for chromium. We also considered some level
between 0.00006 and 0.000022, but we noted that any level below 0.00006
would incur similar costs and emissions reductions.

In summary, we found the cost effectiveness of the proposed GACT limits
to be reasonable. We evaluated more stringent emissions limits that
those proposed, but the overall emission levels would not be
significantly reduced (because most of the area sources are relatively
low emitters), and the cost and cost-effectiveness of achieving these
emissions would be significantly higher than the cost of proposed GACT
standards without significant added environmental benefit. In addition,
and more significantly, setting more stringent limit that those being
proposed this would result in a situation where area source gas-fired
glass-melting furnaces would be subject to stricter regulations than the
major source gas-fired glass-melting furnaces, which would not be
appropriate given that there are no discernible differences between area
and major source furnaces.

References:

D

£

©

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

Metallurgical and Materials Transactions, 1998.

Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing. Background Information for
Proposed Standards. December 1983.

Minutes of EPA Meeting with Representatives of the Wool Fiberglass
Industry and NAIMA. August 31, 2011.

Notes from Steffan Johnson on Caustic Scrubbing of Hexavalent Chromium
Emissions from Industrial Sources. October 26, 2011.

 Information obtained during site visits in December 2012 indicated that
differences in furnace designs, placement of refractory products,
composition and manufacturing specifications of refractory products,
differences in installation of refractory products, and composition of
refractory patches used in “hot” repairs all may influence chromium
emissions from gas-fired furnaces.

 NaOH Scrubber Information. Telephone discussion and emails between
vendors, companies and EPA. Steffan Johnson, Measurement Policy Group.
USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 106 (Monday, June 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25786-25787]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11538]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file

associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Presenter or
         Docket No.                 File date             requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Prohibited
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CP15-558-000.............  5-19-2017             Medical Society of
                                                     New Jersey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Exempt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CP15-93-000..............  5-15-2017             Ohio Environmental
                                                     Protection Agency.
2. CP15-558-000.............  5-15-2017             Newton Township,
                                                     Bucks County,
                                                     Pennsylvania.
3. P-2100-000...............  5-22-2017             California State
                                                     Legislature.\1\
4. CP15-558-000.............  5-23-2017             Upper Makefield
                                                     Township, Bucks
                                                     County,
                                                     Pennsylvania.
5. CP16-22-000..............  5-22-2017             City of Bowling
                                                     Green, Ohio.\2\
6. CP15-138-000.............  5-24-2017             U.S. House
                                                     Representative Lou
                                                     Barletta.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assemblyman James Gallaher and Senator Jim Nielsen.
\2\ Mayor Richard A. Edwards and Council Member Michael Aspacher.

    Dated: May 30, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-11538 Filed 6-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24693-24699]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08436]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0161; FRL-10428-02-R6]

Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonable Further Progress Plan for
the Dallas-Fort Worth Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Texas as proposed on October 9,
2020, and supplemented on December 20, 2022. The revisions were
submitted by Texas on May 13, 2020, to meet the Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) requirements for the Dallas-Fort Worth Serious ozone
nonattainment area (DFW area) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). Specifically, EPA is approving the RFP
demonstration and associated Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (budgets).
EPA is also notifying the public that EPA finds these RFP budgets for
the DFW area adequate for the purpose of transportation conformity. As
a result of such finding, the DFW area must use the budgets from the
submitted DFW RFP SIP for future conformity determinations. The EPA is
not finalizing a previous proposed approval of revisions to the SIP
that address RFP contingency measure requirements for the DFW area in
this action and that will be addressed in a separate action.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 24, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0161. All documents in the docket are listed
on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carrie Paige, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff,
the EPA Region 6 office may be closed to the public to reduce the risk
of transmitting COVID-19. Please call or email the contact listed above
if you need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in
the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our
October 9, 2020, proposal and December 20, 2022, supplemental proposal
(85 FR 64084 and 87 FR 77770, respectively).\1\ In the October 2020
document, we proposed to approve a portion of the May 13, 2020, Texas
SIP revision addressing RFP requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the two Serious ozone nonattainment areas in Texas (``the
Texas RFP submittal''). These two areas are the DFW and the Houston-
Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) areas. The Texas RFP submittal also
establishes budgets for the year 2020 and includes contingency measures
for each of the DFW and HGB areas, should the areas fail to make
reasonable further progress or fail to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. Our October 2020 proposal addressed only
that portion of the Texas RFP submittal that refers to the DFW area.
The portion of the Texas RFP submittal that refers to the HGB area was
addressed in a separate rulemaking action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Henceforth we refer to these proposals as ``the October 2020
document'' or ``the October 2020 proposal'' and ``the December 2022
action'' or ``the December 2022 supplemental proposal.'' These
proposals and our Technical Support Document (TSD) are provided in
the docket for this action.
    \2\ Our final action to approve the RFP plan for the HGB area
was published on May 10, 2021 (86 FR 24717).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our October 2020 proposal also provided information on ozone
formation, the ozone standards, area designations, related SIP revision
requirements under the CAA, and the EPA's implementing regulations for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, referred to as the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements
Rule (``2008 Ozone SRR'').\3\ The DFW area, comprising Collin, Dallas,
Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise
counties was classified as Serious nonattainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and as such was subject to the Serious area requirements, one of
which was to demonstrate RFP in reducing volatile organic compounds
(VOC).\4\ In demonstrating RFP, emission reductions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) may be substituted for VOC reductions, if certain
criteria are met.\5\ As explained in our October 2022 proposal and TSD,
because the State has already satisfied the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirement for the DFW area, all 10 counties in the DFW
nonattainment area may substitute NOX reductions for VOC,
consistent with the 2008 Ozone SRR (see 80 FR 12264, 12271), 40 CFR
51.1110, and EPA's NOX Substitution Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
    \4\ Our final determination that the DFW Serious nonattainment
area failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the area's attainment
date is outside the scope of this action (87 FR 60926, October 7,
2022).
    \5\ See 80 FR 12264, 12271 for an explanation of criteria.
NOX and VOC are precursors to ozone formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comment period on our October 2020 proposal closed on November
9, 2020. We received relevant supportive and adverse comments on our
proposal from the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
and Air Law for All (ALFA) on behalf of the Center for Biological
Diversity and the Sierra Club.\6\ One commenter supported the proposed
action and concurred with the on-road mobile source emission
inventories and budgets for 2020. One commenter stated that our
proposal did not address how the substitution of NOX
emission reductions for VOC emission reductions in the DFW RFP plan is
consistent with the CAA. Based on those comments, we published a
supplemental proposal to address the NOX substitution issue
raised. Our December 2022 supplemental proposal provided an overview of
ozone chemistry and NOX substitution effects, discussed
ozone chemistry in the DFW area, and described how Texas's use of
NOX substitution is warranted and appropriately implemented.
Our December 2022 action also proposed to approve the NOX
substitution provided in the Texas RFP submittal for the DFW area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Henceforth, we refer to the NCTCOG and ALFA as ``the
commenter(s)''. These comments are provided in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov under docket ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comment period on our December 2022 supplemental proposal
closed on January 19, 2023. We received one comment from an anonymous
source that addresses the fossil fuel industry. However, such comments
do not raise NOX substitution in the DFW area, which is the
subject of the December 2022 supplemental proposal and thus, are beyond
the scope of the action and do not require a response below.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ All comments received on this action are provided in the
docket at https://www.regulations.gov under docket ID: EPA-R06-OAR-
2020-0161.

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

    Our responses to comments received on the October 2020 proposal
follow.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: The commenter states that emissions reductions from Texas
sources would assist in mitigating the public health impacts caused by
ozone in the DFW area. The commenter describes the health effects of
exposure to ozone, including the effects on children and disadvantaged
communities in the DFW area. The commenter mentions that reducing ozone
levels below the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb) would
have large and immediate health benefits in Texas. The commenter
includes numerous health studies in support of these statements.
    Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's views and studies
submitted regarding exposure to ground level ozone. This action
addresses certain requirements for the DFW area under the 2008 ozone
NAAQS; however, a more stringent ozone standard of 70 ppb was
promulgated in 2015.\8\ Because the DFW area is also designated as
nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ or State) is working on additional measures
to assist the DFW nonattainment area in attaining the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
    \9\ See 87 FR 60897 (October 7, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Citing specific statutory provisions and excerpts from the
EPA's implementation rules for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, the
commenter asserts that the RFP demonstration for the DFW Serious area
must meet both the general RFP requirements in CAA section 172(c)(2)
that are tied to attainment of the ozone standards and the specific RFP
requirements in CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) for reductions in emissions of
VOCs from baseline emissions. The commenter contends that the RFP
``targets'' cannot be severed from the attainment demonstration and
control strategy and independently approved. The commenter asserts that
because the EPA has not proposed to approve the attainment
demonstration and control strategy for the DFW area, there is no basis
to propose that the RFP demonstration for the DFW area meets the
general RFP requirements in CAA section 172(c)(2).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The RFP targets are also referred to as milestones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the RFP
demonstration does not satisfy RFP requirements because it does not
ensure attainment, which is inconsistent with the EPA's existing
interpretation of RFP requirements established in implementing
regulations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As the commenter notes, Serious
ozone nonattainment areas are subject to the general requirements for
nonattainment plans in CAA subpart 1 and the specific requirements for
ozone areas in CAA subpart 2, including the requirements related to RFP
and attainment. This is consistent with the structure of the CAA as
modified under the 1990 amendments, which introduced additional
subparts to part D of title I of the CAA to address requirements for
specific NAAQS pollutants, including ozone (subpart 2), carbon monoxide
(subpart 3), particulate matter (subpart 4), and sulfur oxides,
nitrogen dioxide, and lead (subpart 5).
    These subparts apply tailored requirements for these pollutants,
including those based on an area's designation and classification, in
addition to and often in place of the generally applicable provisions
retained in subpart 1. While CAA section 172(c)(2) of subpart 1 states
only that nonattainment plans ``shall require reasonable further
progress,'' CAA sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) of subpart 2
provide specific percent reduction targets for ozone nonattainment
areas to meet the RFP requirement. Put another way, subpart 2 further
defines RFP for ozone nonattainment areas by specifying the incremental
amount of emissions reduction required by set dates for those
areas.\11\ For Moderate ozone nonattainment areas, CAA section
182(b)(1) defines RFP by setting a specific 15 percent VOC reduction
requirement over the first six years of the plan. For Serious or higher
ozone nonattainment areas, CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) defines RFP by
setting specific annual percent reductions for the period following the
first six-year period and allows averaging over a three-year period.
With respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the EPA stated that, by meeting
the specific percent reduction requirements in CAA sections 182(b)(1)
and 182(c)(2)(B), the state will also satisfy the general RFP
requirements of section 172(c)(2) for the time period discussed.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CAA section 171(1) defines RFP as ``such annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are
required by this part or may reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable
date.'' The words ``this part'' in the statutory definition of RFP
refer to part D of title I of the CAA, which contains the general
requirements in subpart 1 and the pollutant-specific requirements in
subparts 2-5 (including the ozone-specific RFP requirements in CAA
sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) for Serious areas).
    \12\ See 57 FR 13498 at 13510 (for Moderate areas) and at 13518
(for Serious areas) (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We agree with the commenter that the EPA has adapted the RFP
requirements under the CAA to implement the three 8-hour ozone NAAQS
that have been promulgated since the 1990 CAA Amendments. In the
``Phase 2'' SIP Requirements Rule for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS (Phase 2
rule),\13\ the EPA adapted the RFP requirements of CAA sections
172(c)(2) and 182(a)(1) so as to require plans to provide for the
minimum required percent reductions and, for certain Moderate areas, to
provide for the reductions as necessary for attainment. See, e.g., 40
CFR 51.910(a)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(ii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2015, the EPA replaced the regulations promulgated through the
Phase 2 rule with the regulations promulgated through the 2008 Ozone
SRR.\14\ In the 2008 Ozone SRR, the EPA established RFP requirements
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that are similar, in most respects, to those
in the Phase 2 rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS but that do not define RFP
for certain Moderate areas in terms of the reductions needed for
attainment.\15\ More explicitly, in the 2008 Ozone SRR, the EPA defined
RFP as meaning both the ``emissions reductions required under CAA
section 172(c)(2) which the EPA interprets to be an average 3 percent
per year emissions reductions of either VOC or NOX and CAA sections
182(c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C) and the 15 percent reductions over the first
six years of the plan and the following three percent per year average
under 40 CFR 51.1110.'' \16\ Thus, under the 2008 Ozone SRR, the RFP
emissions reductions required for Serious or higher ozone nonattainment
areas under CAA section 172(c)(2) are based on a set annual percentage
found in the CAA, not on the specific attainment needs for the area. In
this regard, we have been even more explicit in our SRR for the 2015
ozone NAAQS: \17\ ``Reasonable further progress (RFP) means the
emissions reductions required under CAA sections 172(c)(2),
182(c)(2)(B), 182(c)(2)(C), and Sec.  51.1310. The EPA

interprets RFP under CAA section 172(c)(2) to be an average 3 percent
per year emissions reduction of either VOC or NOX.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 80 FR 12264. Under 40 CFR 51.919 and 51.1119, the
regulations promulgated in the 2008 Ozone SRR replaced the
regulations promulgated in the Phase 2 rule, with certain exceptions
not relevant here.
    \15\ Compare RFP requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at 40 CFR
51.910(a)(1)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(ii)(C) with the analogous provisions
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS at 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(i)(B).
    \16\ See 40 CFR 51.1100(t) (emphasis added).
    \17\ See 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018).
    \18\ See 40 CFR 51.1300(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2008 Ozone SRR, which is the set of regulations that governs
the EPA's action here, RFP is defined in terms of percent reduction
from the area's emissions in the baseline year, not in terms of the
reductions necessary for attainment. In other words, for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, the RFP milestones represent the minimum progress that is
required under the CAA and our regulations, not necessarily all of the
reductions necessary to achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS, which
could vary largely from one nonattainment area to another.
    The DFW area RFP demonstration in the Texas RFP submittal was
developed for the DFW Serious nonattainment area \19\ to meet the
applicable requirements of the CAA and our 2008 Ozone SRR, not the
Phase 2 rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we reviewed the
RFP demonstration in the Texas RFP submittal for compliance with the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(i), which adapts the
requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1) for Moderate
areas, and 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(ii), which adapts the requirements of
CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) for Serious areas.\20\ The requirements under
40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2)(i) and (ii) are cumulative and together they
require a 15 percent reduction in emissions from the baseline year
within six years after the baseline year and average emissions
reductions of three percent per year for all remaining three-year
periods after the first six-year period until the year of the area's
attainment date. As explained in our October 2020 proposal, based on
our evaluation, we found that the Texas RFP submittal for the DFW area
provided for the percent reductions required under the 2008 Ozone
SRR.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The DFW area was reclassified from Serious to Severe
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (87 FR 60926, October 7,
2022). The RFP and other SIP requirements for the Severe
nonattainment area will be addressed in a separate rulemaking
action.
    \20\ 40 CFR 51.1110(a)(2) applies to the DFW area because DFW is
an area with an approved 1-hour ozone NAAQS 15 percent VOC Rate of
Progress (ROP) plan.
    \21\ 85 FR 68268, at 68274-68276.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the 2008 Ozone SRR, the RFP demonstration for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS does not need to provide for the reductions needed for
attainment. Thus, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the RFP
demonstration for the DFW area can be severed from the attainment
demonstration and control strategy and can be independently approved,
and we do so in this final rule by approving the RFP demonstration for
the DFW area in the Texas RFP submittal while deferring action on the
attainment demonstration.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that there is no basis to conclude
that the DFW RFP Plan meets the requirements for VOC emission
reductions, as it relies on substitute reductions in emissions of
NOX that have not been shown to be equivalent to the
required VOC emission reductions.
    Response: Our October 2020 proposal did not address how the
NOX reductions in the DFW RFP plan are at least as effective
as using VOC reductions in reducing ozone. Consequently, we published a
December 2022 supplemental proposal, which addresses the NOX
issue. Our December 2022 supplemental proposal describes in detail
ozone chemistry in the DFW area and evaluates the use of NOX
substitution in the Texas submittal. As described in our December 2022
supplemental proposal, the State's review of DFW ozone and
NOX concentrations for each day of the week links levels of
NOX, rather than VOC, with ozone levels, indicating that
decreasing levels of NOX would result in decreasing levels
of ozone. The State's ambient NOX and ozone data in the DFW
area indicate that those areas of DFW with the highest ozone values are
NOX-limited and there are no violating monitors in the DFW
areas described as VOC-limited.\22\ Our December 2022 supplemental
proposal also describes a recent analysis by the EPA that points to the
DFW area as NOX-limited.\23\ Our December 2022 action
proposes that Texas's use of NOX substitution in the DFW
area is reasonable and appropriately implemented. Our December 2022
action also proposes to approve the NOX substitution
provided in the Texas RFP submittal for the DFW area as consistent with
CAA section 182(c)(2)(C). The comment period for the December 2022
supplemental proposal was open from December 20, 2022, to January 19,
2023. We did not receive public comments on our December 2022
supplemental proposal that address or otherwise challenge the technical
basis for NOX substitution in the DFW area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The phrase ``NOX-limited'' means that ozone
concentrations are more sensitive to ambient NOX levels
than to ambient VOC levels. Therefore, in a NOX-limited
area, the formation of ozone is limited by the amount of
NOX present and ozone concentrations are most effectively
reduced by lowering NOX emissions, rather than lowering
emissions of VOC. Additional VOC does not lead to the formation of
more ozone in areas where the reaction is NOX-limited.
    \23\ These analyses are described in the December 2022
supplemental proposal and are posted in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commenter provides numerous statements regarding the
EPA's NOX Substitution Guidance,\24\ contending that if the
EPA intended to adopt the positions set forth in the NOX
Substitution Guidance, the proposal would be arbitrary and capricious
and contrary to law because of problems with the NOX
Substitution Guidance. These comments assert generally that the
NOX Substitution Guidance contradicts CAA section
182(c)(2)(C) by recommending a procedure that fails to demonstrate any
equivalence between VOC and NOX reductions, relies on
incorrect policy assumptions, and gives legal justifications that are
without merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ NOX Substitution Guidance, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
December 1993, available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/19931201_oaqps_nox_substitution_guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: Our proposed approval of the RFP plan's use of
NOX substitution is compatible with the NOX
Substitution Guidance, which, while non-binding and not having the
force of regulation, provides a recommended procedure for substituting
NOX emission reductions for VOC reductions on a percentage
basis, consistent with the State's identified emissions reduction
measures, and RFP milestones and requirements. As noted earlier in
these responses and in our December 2022 supplemental proposal, our
approval of the State's use of NOX substitution is supported
by conditions in the DFW area and EPA analyses and is consistent with
the requirements in CAA section 182(c)(2)(C). Comments relating solely
to the NOX Substitution Guidance are outside the scope of
this rulemaking action.
    Comment: The commenter states that the EPA must disapprove the
contingency measures. The commenter also asserts that the
NOX contingency measures have not been shown to be efficient
in reducing ozone concentrations.
    Response: On January 29, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (``D.C. Circuit'') issued a decision in
response to challenges to EPA's 2015 and 2018 rules implementing the
NAAQS for ozone, (80 FR 12264 and 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018)).
Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, 985 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2021). Among the
rulings in this decision, the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA's interpretation
of the CAA to allow states to rely on already implemented control
measures to meet the statutory

requirements of section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) for contingency measures
in nonattainment plans for the ozone NAAQS (see 83 FR 62998, 63026-27).
The EPA is reexamining the contingency measures portion of the Texas
RFP submittal for the DFW area considering the D.C. Circuit decision.
Therefore, we are not taking final action at this time on the
contingency measures submitted as part of the May 13, 2020, Texas RFP
submittal for the DFW area included in the October 2020 proposal. The
EPA plans to address the contingency measures in a separate action.
    Comment: The commenter contends that the motor vehicle emissions
budgets must be consistent with attainment requirements as well as RFP
requirements and in the absence of an approved attainment demonstration
and control strategy, the RFP budgets must be disapproved. In support
of this contention, the commenter cites selected portions of CAA
section 176(c) and the EPA's transportation conformity rule. First,
under section 176(c)(1)(B)(iii), the commenter notes that a Federal
action cannot ``delay timely attainment of any standard,'' and without
an approved attainment demonstration and control strategy, which could
require VOC and NOX emissions reductions beyond those
required by section 182(c)(2)(C), there is no way to tell if a
transportation plan, improvement program, or project will ``delay
timely attainment'' of the 2008 ozone standards, even if it stays
within the proposed RFP budgets. Second, the commenter notes that,
under the EPA's rules for transportation conformity, the term ``control
strategy implementation plan revision'' is defined as the
``implementation plan which contains specific strategies for
controlling the emissions of and reducing ambient levels of pollutants
in order to satisfy CAA requirements for demonstrations of reasonable
further progress and attainment.'' \25\ For attainment plans (as
opposed to maintenance plans), budgets are in part defined as ``that
portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or
approved control strategy implementation plan revision.'' \26\ Thus,
the commenter argues that the budgets depend on the control strategy
implementation plan revision, which must demonstrate both RFP and
attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 40 CFR 93.101 (emphasis added).
    \26\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the commenter notes that the particular budgets
proposed for approval are derived from the projected on-road mobile
source emissions estimates in the attainment year (2020) emissions
inventory upon which the attainment demonstration is based, and thus
must be consistent with attainment requirements as well as RFP
requirements. Because the EPA has not approved the attainment
demonstration, including the projected attainment year emissions
inventory, the commenter asserts that the EPA cannot approve the
budgets that derive from that inventory.
    Response: First, we acknowledge that the budgets are derived from
the projected attainment year (2020) emissions inventory for the DFW
Serious nonattainment area. However, year 2020 was both an RFP
milestone year and the attainment year for the DFW area.\27\ Therefore,
the projected 2020 emissions inventory was the basis for both the RFP
demonstration for that milestone year and for the attainment
demonstration. As explained earlier in these responses, the RFP
demonstration and attainment demonstration requirements are independent
requirements under the 2008 Ozone SRR and thus, can be approved
separately. In this final action, we are approving the budgets only for
RFP purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ As mentioned earlier in this document, the DFW area was
reclassified from Serious to Severe nonattainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The attainment date for the Severe nonattainment area is July
20, 2027 (87 FR 60926). Therefore, and consistent with 40 CFR
51.1100(h), the attainment year ozone season for the DFW Severe
nonattainment area is 2026. The RFP and other SIP requirements for
the Severe nonattainment area will be addressed in a separate
rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we note that CAA section 176(c)(4)(B) obligates the EPA to
promulgate, and periodically update, criteria and procedures for
demonstrating and assuring conformity in the case of transportation
plans, programs, and projects, and we have done so at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A (``Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of
Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded or
Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws'') (herein,
``transportation conformity rule''). Our transportation conformity rule
defines ``motor vehicle emissions budget'' as ``that portion of the
total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or approved control
strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan for a certain
date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further progress milestones
or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. . . .'' \28\
Further, among the criteria we must use when evaluating a budget for
adequacy or approval, is the criterion at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv) that
requires budgets, when considered together with all other emissions
sources, to be consistent with applicable requirements for RFP,
attainment, or maintenance (whichever is relevant to the given
implementation plan submission).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 40 CFR 93.101 (emphasis added).
    \29\ See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv) (emphases added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, under our transportation conformity rule, the EPA can approve
motor vehicle emissions budgets if we find them consistent, when
considered together with all other emissions sources, with the
applicable requirements for RFP or attainment; it is not required that
the budget be consistent with RFP and attainment but only that they are
consistent with the requirement that is relevant for purposes of the
SIP. In this instance, the relevant requirements are those for RFP, not
attainment, and we are approving the budgets as consistent with those
requirements, not the attainment requirements, consistent with the
transportation conformity rule.\30\ This interpretation has been upheld
by the Ninth Circuit in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 638
F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 2011). In this case, the petitioners similarly
argued that the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations require the
EPA to consider attainment data when determining the adequacy of
budgets for milestone years,\31\ but the Ninth Circuit agreed with the
EPA that the EPA's transportation conformity rule provides otherwise.
More specifically, the court agreed with the EPA that, for a milestone
year, a budget need only demonstrate RFP toward the ultimate goal of
attainment.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The commenter claims that the EPA's adequacy determination
is irrelevant for purposes of whether the EPA can approve the motor
vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs), because the EPA has stated that
its adequacy review ``should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate
approval or disapproval of the SIP.'' The EPA agrees that the
adequacy determination is based on a cursory review of the SIP
submittal when it is made prior to action on the SIP submittal
itself. However, today's adequacy determination is based on the
EPA's complete review, and approval, of the RFP demonstration for
the DFW area within the Texas RFP submittal.
    \31\ Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 638 F.3d 1183,
1191 (9th Cir. 2011).
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 3, 2020, EPA posted the availability of the DFW area
NOX and VOC budgets on EPA's website for the purpose of
soliciting public comments, as part of the adequacy process.\33\ The
comment period closed on July 3, 2020, and we received no comments.
EPA's adequacy review of Texas's submitted budgets indicates that the
budgets meet

the adequacy criteria set forth by 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/adequacy-review-state-implementation-plan-sip-submissions-conformity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The submitted control strategy implementation plan
revision or maintenance plan was endorsed by the Governor (or his or
her designee) and was subject to a State public hearing: The SIP
revision was submitted to EPA by the Chairman of the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality, who is the Governor's designee.
     Before the control strategy implementation plan or
maintenance plan was submitted to EPA, consultation among federal,
State, and local agencies occurred; full implementation plan
documentation was provided to EPA; and EPA's stated concerns, if any,
were addressed: Texas conducted an interagency consultation process
involving EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Texas
Department of Transportation and the DFW area Metropolitan Planning
Organization. All comments and concerns were addressed prior to the
final submittal.
     The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is clearly
identified and precisely quantified: The budgets were clearly
identified and quantified in Texas's submittal and presented in Table 6
of our October 2020 proposal. The budgets are presented again in this
final action in Table 1.
     The motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered
together with all other emissions sources, is consistent with
applicable requirements for reasonable further progress, attainment, or
maintenance (whichever is relevant to the given implementation plan
submission): The 2020 budgets apply a safety margin derived from
surplus emissions reductions from the 2020 RFP demonstration and are
therefore larger than the on-road mobile source inventory for 2020.
However, the DFW RFP plan demonstrates that these budgets are
consistent with reasonable further progress when considered with all
other source categories for the 2020 RFP milestone year. The 2020
budgets were developed with appropriate data inputs for the 2020
milestone year, including vehicle miles of travel, speeds, and
emissions factors.
     The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is consistent with
and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures
in the submitted control strategy implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan: The budgets were developed from the on-road mobile
source inventories, including all applicable state and Federal control
measures. Inputs related to inspection and maintenance and fuels are
consistent with Texas's Federally approved control programs.
     Revisions to previously submitted control strategy
implementation plans or maintenance plans explain and document any
changes to previously submitted budgets and control measures; impacts
on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safety
margins (see 40 CFR 93.101 for definition); and reasons for the changes
(including the basis for any changes related to emission factors or
estimates of vehicle miles traveled): The submitted RFP plan
establishes new 2020 budgets to ensure continued progress towards
attainment of the standards; therefore, this criterion is not
applicable in this circumstance. In light of our responses to the
comments and for the reasons provided in the October 2020 proposal and
December 2022 supplemental proposal, we are taking final action to
approve the RFP demonstration and the related motor vehicle emissions
budgets and are finding that the budgets are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.

          Table 1--RFP Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for DFW
                            [In tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Year                             NOX      VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.................................................   107.25    62.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    We are approving revisions to the Texas SIP that address the RFP
requirements for the DFW Serious ozone nonattainment area for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we are approving the RFP demonstration and
associated motor vehicle emissions budgets. We are also notifying the
public that EPA finds the budgets for NOX and VOC for the
DFW area are adequate for the purpose of transportation conformity.
Within 24 months from May 24, 2023, the transportation partners will
need to demonstrate conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs
pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e)(3).

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    As stated in our December 2022 supplemental proposal and for
informational purposes only, EPA reviewed demographic data, which
provides an assessment of individual demographic groups of the
populations living within the 10-county DFW ozone nonattainment area
(Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall,
Tarrant, and Wise counties). EPA then compared the data to the national
average. The results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for
populations within Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Kaufman, and Tarrant
counties, the percent people of color (persons who reported their race
as a category other than White alone (not Hispanic or Latino)) is
higher than the national average (ranging from 46.1 to 75.4 percent
versus 43.1 percent). For populations within Johnson, Parker, Rockwall,
and Wise counties, the percent people of color (persons who reported
their race as a category other than White alone (not Hispanic or
Latino)) is lower than the national average (ranging from 19.7 to 35.9
percent versus 43.1 percent). Within people of color, the percent of
the population that is Black or African American alone is higher than
the national average in Dallas, Ellis, Kaufman, and Tarrant counties
(ranging from 14.4 to 23.8 percent versus 13.6 percent) and lower than
the national average in the other six DFW counties (ranging from 1.8 to
11.9 percent versus 13.6 percent). Within people of color, the percent
of the population that is American Indian/Alaska Native is lower than
the national average in all 10 of the DFW counties (ranging 0.7 percent
to 1.2 percent versus 1.3 percent). Within people of color, the percent
of the population that is Asian alone is higher than the national
average in Collin, Dallas, and Denton counties (ranging from 7.0 to
17.5 percent versus 6.1 percent) and lower than the national average in
the other seven DFW counties (ranging from 0.6 to 6.0 percent versus
6.1 percent). Within people of color, the percent of the population
that is Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone is higher than
the national average in Johnson County (0.5 percent versus 0.3
percent), equal to the national average in Tarrant County (0.3
percent), and lower than the national average in the other eight DFW
counties (0.1 percent versus 0.3 percent). Within people of color, the
percent of the population that is two or more races is equal to the
national average in Collin County (2.9 percent) and lower than the
national average in the other nine DFW counties (ranging from 2.0 to
2.8 percent versus 2.9 percent). Within people of color, the percent of
the population that is Hispanic or Latino is lower than the national
average in Collin and Parker counties (ranging from 14.0 to 15.8
percent versus 18.9 percent) and higher than the national average in
the other eight DFW counties (ranging from 20.0 to 41.4 percent versus
18.9 percent). The percent of people living in poverty in Dallas County
is higher than the

national average (13.7 percent versus 11.6 percent) and lower than the
national average in the other nine DFW counties (ranging from 4.8 to
10.5 percent versus 11.6 percent).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final action does not add new rules to the SIP but
demonstrates ongoing reductions of ozone precursor emissions, as
required by the CAA. Information on ozone and its relationship to
negative health impacts can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution.\35\ We expect that the continuing emission
reductions demonstrated in this action will generally be neutral or
contribute to reduced environmental and health impacts on all
populations in the 10-county DFW ozone nonattainment area, including
people of color and low-income populations. Further, there is no
information in the record indicating that this action is expected to
have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental
effects on a particular group of people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See also, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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, 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).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The TCEQ did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA performed an EJ analysis,
as is described above in the section titled, ``Environmental Justice
Considerations.'' The analysis was done for the purpose of providing
additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public,
not as a basis of the action. Due to the nature of the action being
taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive
impact on the air quality of the affected area. In addition, there is
no information in the record upon which this decision is based
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for
people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 23, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 17, 2023.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 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.

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270(e), the table titled ``EPA Approved Nonregulatory
Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP'' is amended
by adding the entry ``Reasonable Further

Progress (RFP) Plan and RFP Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for 2020''
at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
       Name of SIP provision        Applicable geographic    submittal/      EPA approval date       Comments
                                    or nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)   Collin, Dallas,              3/4/2020  4/24/2023 [Insert
 Plan and RFP Motor Vehicle          Denton, Ellis,                         Federal Register
 Emission Budgets for 2020.          Johnson, Kaufman,                      citation].
                                     Parker, Rockwall,
                                     Tarrant and Wise
                                     Counties, TX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-08436 Filed 4-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	November 20, 2014

TO:	Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM:	Rob Lawrence EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT:	June 26, 2014 Presentation to Region 6 Federal Facilities Forum Regarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

      A presentation was made by EPA to the Region 6 Federal Facilities Forum and the attendees listed below on June 26, 2014, to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants, which was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Participants :	General Services Administration, US Army, US Air Force, Postal Service, Federal Aviation Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Bureau of Prisons

EPA Participant:	Rob Lawrence (Region 6 Energy Policy Advisor)


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 87 (Monday, May 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26375-26376]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10651]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001]

Food and Drug Administration/International Society for
Pharmaceutical Engineering Co-Sponsorship Educational Workshop:
Redefining the `C' in CGMP (Current Good Manufacturing Practices):
Creating, Implementing, and Sustaining a Culture of Quality

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public conference.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in co-sponsorship with the
International Society of Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE), is
announcing a conference entitled ``Redefining the `C' in CGMP:
Creating, Implementing and Sustaining a Culture of Quality''
Pharmaceutical Quality System (ICH Q10) Conference.
    The conference will span 3 days and is dedicated to teaching the
principles of CGMP, reaping the benefits that come from establishing
and maintaining a state of control, implementing continual improvement,
enhancing regulatory compliance, and meeting quality objectives every
day. The conference will take place in Baltimore, MD, and will draw on
the best industry and regulator contributors on this topic.
    Date and Time: The conference will be held on June 11, 2013, from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; June 12, 2013, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and June 13,
2013, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Location: The event will be held at the Renaissance Baltimore
Harborplace Hotel, 202 East Pratt St., Baltimore, MD 21201, 1-800-535-
1201.
    Contact Person: Nancy Berg, President, International Society for
Pharmaceutical Engineering, 600 North Westshore Blvd., suite 900,
Tampa, FL 33609, Web site: http://www.ISPE.org/CGMP.
    Conference attendees are responsible for their own accommodations.
    Registration: You are encouraged to register at your earliest
convenience. The ISPE registration fees cover the cost of facilities,
materials, and breaks. Seats are limited; please submit your
registration as soon as possible. Conference space will be filled in
order of receipt of registration. Those accepted to the conference will
receive confirmation. Registration will close after available
conference space is filled. Onsite registration will be available on a
space available basis on the day of the

public conference beginning at 7 a.m. on June 11, 2013. The cost of
registration is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISPE Member............................  $1,545 (prior to May 13);
                                          $1,745 (after May 13 and
                                          onsite).
ISPE Nonmember.........................  $1,905 (prior to May 13);
                                          $2,115 (after May 13 and
                                          onsite).
ISPE New Member........................  $1,814 (prior to May 13);
                                          $2,014 (after May 13 and
                                          onsite).
Federal Government Employee registering  $500.
 prior to/after May13.
FDA Planning Committee Members and       (free) Fee Waived.
 Invited Speakers.
ISPE Active, Functional and Program      $1,005 (prior and after May
 Committee Members.                       13).
Student (prior to/after May 13)........  $200.
Individuals from Academia/Emerging       $1,005 (prior to May 13);
 Economy.                                 $1,135 (after May 13 and
                                          onsite).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Registration instructions: To register, please submit your name,
affiliation, mailing address, phone number, fax number, and email
address, along with a check or money order payable to ``ISPE.'' To
register via the Internet, go to the ISPE Web site, www.ISPE.org, to
confirm the prevailing registration fees.

    Dated: May 1, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-10651 Filed 5-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 49145]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Seventy Ninth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 147, Minimum
Operational Performance Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision
Avoidance Systems Airborne Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 147, Minimum
Operational Performance Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision
Avoidance Systems Airborne Equipment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Seventy Nineth meeting of RTCA Special Committee 147, Minimum
Operational Performance Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision
Avoidance Systems Airborne Equipment.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 11th, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m.

ADDRESS: The meeting will be held at 1150 18th St. NW., Suite 910
Washington, DC 20036

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 147. The agenda will
include the following:

September 11

 Opening Plenary Session
    [cir] Chairmen's Opening Remarks/Introductions
    [cir] Approval of Summary from 78th meeting of SC-147
    [cir] Approval of Agenda
 Report from WG-75
 Review of ISRA deliverable for SC 228
 EUROCONTROL Report
 Report from WG-1 (Surveillance and Tracking)
 Report from WG-2 (Threat Resolution)
    [cir] Threat Resolution
    [cir] Xo sub group
    [cir] Safety sub-group
 Review of the Software Development Agreement
 Coordination Stress Testing
 Operational Team Updates
 Review of Decisions
    [cir] Use of ADS-B Only targets
 Additional business/Overflow if time permits
    [cir] Solicitation of vendor data for SWG/TOO analysis
 Closing Session
    [cir] Next Meeting Location
    [cir] Action Item review
    [cir] End Meeting

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 14, 2014.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-19692 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78453-78454]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0387; Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0138; Docket No.
FMCSA-2018-0139; Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0109; Docket No. FMCSA-2021-
0014; Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0015]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 16
individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided
below.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number (FMCSA-2014-0387, FMCSA-2018-0138, FMCSA-2018-0139, FMCSA-2019-
0109, FMCSA-2021-0014, or FMCSA-2021-0015) in the keyword box and click
``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose
the first notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not
have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting
Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. ET Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202) 366-
9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

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

II. Background

    On October 6, 2023, FMCSA published a notice announcing its
decision to renew exemptions for 16 individuals from the hearing
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate
commerce and requested comments from the public (88 FR 69677). The
public comment period ended on November 6, 2023, and no comments were
received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that renewing these exemptions would likely achieve a level
of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid
(35 FR 6458, 6463 (Apr. 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 8, 1971),
respectively).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 16 renewal exemption applications,
FMCSA announces its decision to

exempt the following drivers from the hearing requirement in Sec.
391.41 (b)(11).
    As of October 1, 2023, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following five individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (88 FR 69679):

Azulita-Jane Camacho (CA)
Robert Culp (FL)
Charles Davis (AL)
Christopher Fisher (WA)
John Price (TX)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2018-0139. Their
exemptions were applicable as of October 1, 2023 and will expire on
October 1, 2025.
    As of October 8, 2023, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following five individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (88 FR 69679):

Judith Badore (VT)
Dareous Glover (IL)
Delroy Hunt (FL)
John Norman (IL)
Kyle Voss (WI)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2021-0015. Their
exemptions are applicable as of October 8, 2023 and will expire on
October 8, 2025.
    As of October 10, 2023, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (88 FR 69679): Kurt Bernabei
(IL); and Steven Robelia (TN).
    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2019-0109. Their
exemptions are applicable as of October 10, 2023 and will expire on
October 10, 2025.
    As of October 22, 2023, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (88 FR 69679):

Richard Carter (MD)
Clinton Homon (IL)
Pete Kujawa (WI)
Jonathan Muhm (KY)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2014-0387, FMCSA-
2018-0138, or FMCSA-2021-0014. Their exemptions are applicable as of
October 22, 2023 and will expire on October 22, 2025.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) the person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136, 49
U.S.C. chapter 313, or the FMCSRs.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-25114 Filed 11-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P