[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1944-1945]
[FR Doc No: 2012-399]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0011]

Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee: Intercessional
Meeting

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Working Group Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) will
conduct an intercessional meeting to facilitate working group
discussion of Task Statement 76, entitled ``Review of Performance
Measures (Assessment Criteria),'' and Task Statement 77, entitled
``Development of Performance Measures (Assessment Criteria).'' This
meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: A MERPAC working group will meet on January 31, 2012, from 8
a.m. until 5 p.m., and on February 1, 2012, from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m.
Please note that the meeting may adjourn early if all business is
finished. Written comments to be distributed to working group members
and placed on MERPAC's Web site are due by January 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The working group will meet at the STAR Center, 2 West Dixie
Highway, Dania Beach, FL 33004-4312. For further information about the
STAR Center hotel facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance, contact Mr. Graeme
Holman at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the work group, which are listed in
the ``Agenda'' section below. Written comments must be identified by
Docket No. USCG-2012-0011 and may be submitted by one of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments (preferred method to
avoid delays in processing).
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the
January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments
related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    This notice may be viewed in our online docket, USCG-2012-0011, at
http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rogers Henderson, Alternate
Designated Federal Officer of MERPAC, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you
have any questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).
    MERPAC is an advisory committee authorized under section 871 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Title 6, United States Code, section
451, and chartered under the provisions of the FACA. The Committee will
act solely in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) through the Commandant of the Coast Guard
and the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards on matters
relating to personnel in the U.S. merchant marine, including but not
limited to training, qualifications, certification, documentation, and
fitness standards. The Committee will advise, consult with, and make
recommendations reflecting its independent judgment to the Secretary.

Agenda

Day 1

    The agenda for the January 31, 2012, working group meeting is as
follows:
    (1) Review existing performance measures and develop new
performance measures which can be used to assess mariner competencies
listed in the International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978 as amended;
    (2) Public comment period;
    (3) Discuss and prepare proposed recommendations for the full
committee to consider with regards to Task Statement 76, concerning the
review of existing performance measures which can be used to assess
mariner competencies listed in the STCW, and Task Statement 77,
concerning the development of new performance measures which can be
used to assess mariner competencies in the STCW (these task statements
are included as supplemental material to the docket); and
    (4) Adjournment of meeting.

Day 2

    The agenda for the February 1, 2012, working group meeting is as
follows:
    (1) Continue discussion on proposed recommendations;
    (2) Public comment period;
    (3) Discuss and prepare final recommendations for the full
committee to consider with regards to Task Statement 76, concerning the
review of existing performance measures which can be used to assess
mariner competencies listed in the STCW, and Task Statement 77,
concerning the development of new performance measures which can be
used to assess mariner competencies in the STCW (these task statements
are included as supplemental material to the docket); and
    (4) Adjournment of meeting.
    Procedural: A copy of all meeting documentation is available at the
https://www.fido.gov Web site or by contacting Rogers Henderson. Once
you have accessed the MERPAC Committee page, click on the meetings tab
and then the ``View'' button for the meeting dated January 31-February
1, 2012 to access the information for this meeting.

Minutes will be available 90 days after this meeting. Both minutes and
documents related to this meeting can also be found at an alternative
site using the following Web address: https://homeport.uscg.mil and use
these key strokes: Missions; Port and Waterways Safety; Advisory
Committees; MERPAC; and then use the event key.
    A public oral comment period will be held during the working group
meeting. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes.
Please note that the public oral comment period may end before the
prescribed ending time indicated following the last call for comments.
Contact Rogers Henderson as indicated above to register as a speaker.

    Dated: January 6, 2012.
F.J. Sturm,
Deputy Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2012-399 Filed 1-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44236-44238]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18657]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0350; FRL-9982-47--Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oklahoma;
General SIP Updates

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 Oklahoma submitted by the State of
Oklahoma designee with a letter dated February 14, 2017. The submittal
includes updates to the Oklahoma SIP, as contained in annual SIP
updates for 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, and incorporates the latest
changes to EPA regulations. This action addresses the revisions
submitted to the Oklahoma SIP pertaining to incorporation by reference
of federal requirements and emission inventory reporting requirements.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No.EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0350. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://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 and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adina Wiley,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

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 July
6, 2018, proposal at 83 FR 31511. In that document, we proposed to
approve revisions to the Oklahoma SIP submitted by letter dated
February 14, 2017, from the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and
Environment that pertain to incorporation by reference of federal
requirements and emission inventory reporting requirements.
Specifically, we proposed to approve the revisions to Subchapter 2,
Subchapter 5, and Appendix Q under Title 252, Chapter 100 of the
Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC).
    We received two comments on our July 6, 2018, proposal. One
commenter provided personal observations regarding former EPA
Administrator Scott Pruitt. One commenter provided comments about
reducing greenhouse gas emissions through forest management practices.
Neither of these comments is relevant to our proposed rulemaking to
approve the updates to the incorporation by reference of federal
requirements or updates to the Oklahoma emission inventory reporting
requirements. Since these comments are not relevant to the specific
action EPA proposed, the EPA will not be responding to these comments
or making any changes to our proposed rulemaking because of these
comments.

II. Final Action

    We are approving revisions to the Oklahoma SIP that revise the
incorporation by reference dates for federal requirements and update
the emission inventory reporting requirements. We have determined that
these revisions, submitted by Oklahoma on February 14, 2017, were
developed in accordance with the CAA and EPA's regulations. Therefore,
under section 110 of the Act, the EPA approves the following revisions
to the Oklahoma SIP:
     Revisions to OAC 252:100-2-3 and Appendix Q adopted on
April 25, 2013; effective July 1, 2013;
     Revisions to OAC 252:100-2-3 and Appendix Q adopted on
June 19, 2014; effective September 12, 2014;
     Revisions to OAC 252:100-2-3 and Appendix Q adopted on
June 8, 2015; effective September 15, 2015;
     Revisions to OAC 252:100-2-3 and Appendix Q adopted on
June 9, 2016; effective September 15, 2016;
     Revisions to OAC 252:100-5-2 adopted on June 19, 2014;
effective September 12, 2014;
     Revisions to OAC 252:100-5-2.1 adopted on June 19, 2014;
effective September 12, 2014;
     Revisions to OAC 252:100-5-2.1 adopted June 9, 2016;
effective September 15, 2016; and
     Revisions to OAC 252:100-5-3 adopted on June 19, 2014;
effective September 12, 2014.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
revisions to the Oklahoma regulations as described in the Final Action
section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 6 Office (please contact Adina Wiley for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion
in the Oklahoma SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA
into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and
113 of the CAA as of the effective date of this final rulemaking, and
will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.

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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 October 29, 2018. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 23, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended 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 LL--Oklahoma

0
2. In Sec.  52.1920(c), the table titled ``EPA Approved Oklahoma
Regulations'' is amended by revising the entries for Sections 252:100-
2-3; 252:100-5-2; 252:100-5-2.1; 252:100-5-3; and 252:100, Appendix Q
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                            EPA Approved Oklahoma Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           State citation                 Title/subject             State effective date           EPA approval date               Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
252:100-2-3........................  Incorporation by        9/15/2016                          8/30/2018, [Insert      ................................
                                      reference.                                                 Federal Register
                                                                                citation].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
252:100-5-2........................  Registration of         9/12/2014                          8/30/2018, [Insert      ................................
                                      potential sources of                                       Federal Register
                                      air contaminants.                                          citation].
252:100-5-2.1......................  Emission inventory....  9/15/2016                          8/30/2018, [Insert      ................................
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                citation].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
252:100-5-3........................  Confidentiality of      9/12/2014                          8/30/2018, [Insert      ................................
                                      proprietary                                                Federal Register
                                      information.                                               citation].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
252:100, Appendix Q................  Incorporation by        9/15/2016                          8/30/2018, [Insert      ................................
                                      reference.                                                 Federal Register
                                                                                citation].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-18657 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 55843-55845]
[DOCID:fr29oc09-81]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0015; FRL-8973-1]

Release of Draft Document Related to the Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Availability of draft document for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: On or about October 20, 2009, the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) of EPA is making available for public
comment a draft assessment document: Risk and Exposure Assessment to
Support the Review of the Carbon Monoxide (CO) Primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standards--First External Review Draft. This draft document
describes the quantitative analyses that are being conducted as part of
the review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
carbon monoxide (CO).

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before November 19, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0015, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0015.
     Fax: Fax your comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket
ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0015.

     Mail: Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0015.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA
Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0015. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at  http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket in the
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions related to the draft
document titled, Risk and Exposure Assessment to Support the Review of
the Carbon Monoxide (CO) Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standards--First External Review Draft (October 2009), please contact
Dr. Ines Pagan, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Mail Code
C504-06), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
919-541-0237.

General Information

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), the Administrator identifies and lists certain pollutants which
``cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' The EPA then issues
air quality criteria for these listed pollutants, which are commonly
referred to as ``criteria pollutants.'' The air quality criteria are to
``accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in
indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public
health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a]
pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.'' Under section
109 of the CAA, EPA establishes primary (health-based) and secondary
(welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality criteria are
issued. Section 109(d) of the CAA requires periodic review and, if
appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air
quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the
effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also
required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate,
based on the revised criteria.
    Presently, EPA is reviewing the air quality criteria and NAAQS for
CO. The EPA's overall plan and schedule for this review is presented in
the Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Carbon Monoxide.\1\ A draft of the integrated review plan
was released for public review and comment in March 2008 and was the
subject of a consultation with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) on April 8, 2008 (73 FR 12998). Comments received
from that consultation and from the public were considered in
finalizing the plan and in beginning the review of the air quality
criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA 452R-08-005; August 2008; Available at: http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/co/s_co_cr_pd.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of EPA's review of the primary (health-based) CO NAAQS, the
Agency is conducting qualitative and quantitative assessments
characterizing the health risks associated with exposure to ambient CO.
The EPA's plans for conducting these assessments, including the
proposed scope and methods of the analyses, were presented in a
planning document titled, Carbon

Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope and Methods Plan
for Health Risk and Exposure Assessment (Scope and Methods Plan). This
document was released for public comment in April 2009 and was the
subject of a consultation with the CASAC on May 13, 2009 (74 FR 15265).
Comments received from the CASAC consultation (Brain and Samet, 2009)
\2\ as well as public comments on the Scope and Methods Plan have been
considered in developing the draft assessment document being released
at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
93C1DE17CB957211852575F30071B0BD/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-012-unsigned.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The draft document announced today conveys the approaches taken to
assess exposures to ambient CO and to characterize associated health
risks, as well as present the initial key results, observations, and
related uncertainties associated with the quantitative analyses
performed. This draft document will be available on or about October
20, 2009, through the Agency's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/co/s_co_index.html.
This document may be accessed in the ``Documents from Current Review''
section under ``Risk and Exposure Assessments.'' The EPA is soliciting
advice and recommendations from the CASAC by means of a review of the
draft document at an upcoming public meeting of the CASAC scheduled in
Chapel Hill, NC. Information about this public meeting, including the
date and location, has been published as a separate notice in the
Federal Register (74 FR 48536) on September 23, 2009. Following the
CASAC meeting, EPA will consider comments received from the CASAC and
the public in preparing revisions to this assessment document.
    The draft document briefly described above does not represent and
should not be construed to represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint,
or determination. The EPA will consider any public comments submitted
in response to this notice when revising the documents.

    Dated: October 15, 2009.
Jennifer Noonan Edmonds,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. E9-26093 Filed 10-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


be retained and adopted for crystalline silica.

		In the OSHA file there is a document that was used to prepare
information on the glass industry and also on our furnaces.  It's called
OSHA's Preliminary Economic Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, 2003, or the OSHA Silica PEA is what I'll call it, going
forward.

		The OSHA Silica PEA asks that our facilities -- or excuse me, our
facilities have already incorporated many of the recommendations
contained in the OSHA PEA for glass.  Workers performing daily
activities already meet the proposed standard.

		The risk potential for exposure for us is with maintenance and
malfunction activities.  Cullet mentioned in the PEA is exempt from the
crystalline silica standard because it's amorphous, but in today's world
there's insufficient usable quantities that are currently available for
us to replace that with sand.

		And I'll talk a little bit about that when I go through the pictures
as well.  The PEA identifies cullet as amorphous, and I've got that
reference for the picture.

		Refractory.  Refractory is the insulation that we build our furnaces
out of.  The OSHA Silica PEA recommends replacing high silica with low
silica refractory.  The refractory or insulating brick makes up most
parts of the furnace, and today's low silica refractory is already used
for most of our furnace.  I've got a picture of that.  I'll show you
what that looks like, too.

		We simply cannot replace the high silica crown refractory with low
silica refractory in today's world.  There is a low silica refractory
crown material that is available, and it would add about 10 times the
cost.  It's about seven times the cost for the refractory itself, and
the steel structure has to be changed, so you have to remove all of that
and rebuild a new cap for it.

		Or, using a low standard -- or a standard low silica refractory would
shorten the furnace life dramatically, our engineers tell me, by 3/4 of
the life of the furnace.  And it would spall off periodically, causing
considerable quality problems in our product.  Verallia recommends that
respirators be allowed in all refractory repairs.

		In summary, Verallia recommends that respirators be allowed in all
maintenance and malfunction activities, that compressed air be continued
to be allowed, that OSHA adopt three years as a compliance date
requirement after the rule becomes effective, that OSHA follow standard
IH protocol on IH sampling, valid for three years unless equipment or
process changes could alter that, and that respirators be allowed during
all refractory work.  And these are some of the pictures.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Smith, what I'm going to ask you to do -- I
assume you intend to offer a copy of your PowerPoint presentation.

		MR. S. SMITH:  There you go.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  As you're referring to photographs, would you identify
them in the PowerPoint presentation, either by page number --

		MR. S. SMITH:  Most certainly.  I actually have them addressed as a
separate page identifier, so the picture that's up on the screen right
now would be Appendix 2.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Okay, and that's on Page 5.  But if you want to just
refer to each picture as appendix and by number, that'll be fine.

		MR. S. SMITH:  Most certainly.  The first picture is a batch diverter,
so the batch goes up the lift elevator, which looking at the picture, is
the long, cylindrical box going up, and then it comes down the pipes.

		You notice that there's a red circle in this picture, and there's a
repair on one of those pipes.  Failure of that pipe with the material in
it would mean the batch material, including the sand, would pour all
over, and that would be a problem, because somebody has to go and repair
that.  As part of the repair, there's also cleanup, so that material
would have to be cleaned up as well.

		We also have air filter devices in our facilities, and they require
maintenance.  Maintenance on an air filter device that's designed to
filter the air out means that the employee that's going to work on it is
probably going to see some measurable levels of silica dust.

		They have to be opened periodically.  Sometimes motors burn out.
There's different things that can occur to them.  And there's no way to
predict this.  There is predictive maintenance, and we do do that, but
these malfunctions that can occur at any time are the ones that cause us
the most problems.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  And the air filter devices you were referring to are
shown in Appendix 3.

		MR. S. SMITH:  Oh yes, this is Appendix 3.  This page is Appendix 4,
and this is a belt conveyor.  A belt conveyor lifts the material to
above the furnace from the batch house.  A failure of the belt can cause
a copious amount of material to be piled in disarray, or none, depending
or none, depending on whether or not there was any on the belt when the
belt failed.

		So engineering out the silica dust for a event that may or may not
occur in this particular case would be problematic for us.

		Next page is Appendix 5.  This shows a batch diverter.  And it shows a
batch diverter that's been repaired a number of times.  And I put this
in here because it shows that the material that we have is very
aggressive, and it's also somewhat unpredictable.

		And you might say, well, it's been repaired several times.  You can
predict that.  I've got other pictures of diverters in here that don't
have any repairs on them.  So it's the wear and tear, and how the
material slides through the system, that makes it hard for us to guess
where we're going to have repairs to do.

		Next picture is Appendix 6, and this shows a diverter that has not had
those kinds of repairs.  But you'll notice there's red circles in this
picture that show pockmarks on the equipment.  And those pockmarks are
from where employees have had to hammer against this equipment to try to
clear jams.

		When they do that, they may or may not have the access door open.  If
the access door is open while they're pounding, they're probably
generating dust.

		The next picture is Appendix 7.  This is a batch storage area.  And I
put this in there because it doesn't show those pockmarks and it doesn't
show any repairs, but it does have access doors in case things plug up.

		In this particular picture -- I took this picture, I asked the former
plant manager how many times this plugged up, and he said while he
worked there, they never plugged up.  So, again, it's that unpredictable
nature.

		In one facility they may not plug up.  In the next facility they may
be fighting this for -- once a week for all winter long.  Winter's when
we typically have the plug up problems.

		The next picture is Appendix 8.  And this is a batch scale.  It's kind
of hard to tell from the picture, but that's what it is.  It weighs our
material for us.  And it has to be cleaned.  We have to keep the buildup
off of it.

		In today's world we use compressed air to get that off of there so
that we can get in there and keep it operational.  Without the ability
of compressed air, this would be very difficult to manage.

		We mentioned cullet in the PEA.  Cullet is recycled glass.
Unfortunately, we're not very good in the United States about recycling
our beverage containers.  About -- a little over 65 percent of all the
glass recycled in the United States comes from 10 states.

		The state of the art state, the one that does it the best is Michigan,
and it's a bottle bill state, and the 65 percent that we get it from are
also bottle bill states.  Verallia is very active in obtaining cullet.
We buy every ton we can get.

		The next picture is Appendix 10, and it is a discussion of a process
called single stream.  If you're not a bottle bill state, most states
employ the single stream process.  And I know you do that here in
Washington, D.C.  I saw a number of places where that was available.

		Single stream presents some real challenges for us in the recycling
world, because number one, all the recyclables get mixed together.  And
that's easy to collect the tonnage at the street, but once you get it
all collected, then you have to try to unscramble it.  We call it
unscrambling the egg.

		And even after processing, we still run into contamination problems,
and these are pictures of contamination that we've actually had come
through in our furnace-ready cullet.  And yes, the one picture is a
picture of some syringes, which is a health and safety issue for us.

		The state of the art, the state that does this the best, the single
stream process, as far as all the data that we get and we collect, is
Minnesota.  They get about 38 percent of their glass containers
recovered.

		The next picture is Appendix 11, and this is a refractory furnace that
was just rebuilt.  It has not been put into use yet.  I put this in
there so that you could see the different types of refractory.  The base
is low silica AZS refractory.  And then the midrange is a low silica
bonded AZS refractory.

		And the rounded part at the top is the high silica crown refractory,
and that's the one we would have trouble replacing with low silica.  In
today's world, there's not a practical application for us.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. Smith.  I've marked your PowerPoint
presentation as Hearing Exhibit Number 93.  I'll admit that into the
record.

(Whereupon, the document referred to as Hearing Exhibit 93 was marked
and rein evidence.)

		JUDGE PURCELL:  And could I see a show of hands in the audience,
questions for either Ms. Bragg or Mr. Smith?  Two.  Mr. Wright?

		MR. WRIGHT:  Maybe.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Maybe.  Okay, I have a maybe for Mr. Wright and
Dr. Monforton.  Please state your name and affiliation for the record.

		DR. MONFORTON:  Sure.  Dr. Celeste Monforton, George Washington
University School of Public Health.  I am questioning as an individual.

		I just want to get a sense -- the testimony was that really the
overexposures come during the -- I'm sorry, let me say that again.  The
provisions for engineering controls would be difficult when there are
malfunctions and just disturbances.  And I'm just wondering, how often
does that happen?  Is it something, you know, that's once a month, or
once a week?

		MR. MANN:  I can answer that.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Please identify yourself for the record, and your
affiliation.

		MR. MANN:  Is this on?  My name is William Mann.  I'm Vice President
of Health and Safety for Verallia Glass Container.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Can you spell your last name?

		MR. MANN:  M-a-n-n.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. Mann.

		MR. MANN:  I'm also a previous Plant Manager in the facility where
some of these pictures were taken, so.

		You know, it varies.  It really varies.  I mean, that's the whole crux
of this issue, that it varies so much.  Some facilities may have 20
times in a year.  Another facility may have zero.  So I would say, on
average, across our 13 facilities, probably around five times a year --
five to six times a year would be average.

		DR. MONFORTON:  Okay, thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  All right, thank you Dr. Monforton.  Mr. Wright, did
you have any questions?

		MR. WRIGHT: Yes, just two simple questions about occupational health
controls, Your Honor.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  State your name for the record.

		MR. WRIGHT:  Michael Wright from the United Steelworkers.  These are
both for the last witness.  The first is, you mentioned the problem of
jams and clogs in some of your handling equipment, the piping equipment,
and the necessity for workers to occasionally open that equipment, and
thereby be exposed to silica as a result of trying to clear those clogs.

		In other industries we use, at critical points, essentially vibrating
equipment that keeps that pipe in a low state of vibration, which is
pretty effective at preventing clogs.  Have you considered using that
kind of equipment in the glass industry?

		MR. S. SMITH:  Actually, we -- this is Steve Smith.  Actually, yes,
we do employ that technology where we know we have consistent problems.
The problem with this is, we've got pipes and equipment all over the
place, and it's anybody's guess where the next one's going to occur.

		It's typically a moisture issue, or at least that's my understanding,
that comes in with the cullet.  And it's worse in the winter than any
other time of year because of the moisture and the freezing.

		MR. WRIGHT:  So it's a cullet issue more than a sand issue?

		MR. MANN:  Bill Mann.  Yes, I think that the moisture issue is a
cullet issue.  Cullet sits outside and gains moisture and then goes into
the system.  And then that's mixed with silica and other raw materials,
and it clogs in various areas.

		And to your point about the vibratory devices, we do use them all over
the plant.  And in general, they are effective in many areas.  But some
areas still require the use of our people to go, again, at no set
frequency, but only when there's these malfunctions that are so hard to
predict, in certain areas, and use sledgehammers and/or open up to
unclog.

		MR. WRIGHT:  Okay.  Second, the -- what is the difficulty -- the
technical difficulty of using a low silica material for the crown
refractory?  What's special about the crown refractory that makes it
necessary to use a high silica refractory there?

		MR. S. SMITH:  My understanding is, it's the quality of the crown
itself.  The high silica crown performs in a way that helps hold the
heat in.  Our furnaces run at about 2700 degrees, so they're very hot.

		The low silica refractory, unless it's the special low silica
refractory that's specifically designed for crowns, it simply wouldn't
hold up.  It would spall off, and pieces of the refractory would fall
into the glass bed, and then break up and come through and cause seeds
in our bottles.  And so that would be a manufacturing process problem
for us.

		On the flip side, if you get the low silica refractory specifically
designed for crowns, it's a cost issue.  It costs about 10 times as
much.

		MR. WRIGHT:  What's the difference between those two?

		JUDGE PURCELL:  For the record, that was Mr. Steven Smith responding.

		MR. S. SMITH:  Sorry.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Go ahead, Mr. Wright.

		MR. WRIGHT:  What's the difference between those two refractories, and
what -- how is the expensive, low silica crown refractory different
from the less expensive, low silica refractory used on the walls and
sides of the furnace?

		MR. S. SMITH:  I'm not a refractory engineer, but I could get you that
question if you're interested.

		MR. WRIGHT:  It might be interesting for the record, if that's
possible.  Okay, thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. Wright.  Thank you, Mr. Smith, for
your response.  Any further questions from anyone in the audience?  I
don't see any hands, so I'm going to ask OSHA if they might have any
questions.  I suspect they do.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  Yes, a few.  This is Dave O'Connor.  I just wanted to
get a better understanding of the central vacuum system that was
described as being present in many glass batch houses.  Do I understand
this to be a central vacuum system that is used to collect dust and
other small debris throughout the facility, or does it have some other
purpose?

		MR. S. SMITH:  This is Steve Smith.  Are you referring to the picture
that I showed, that showed the baghouses, the blue equipment?

		MR. O'CONNOR:  I was referring to the written comments from
Ms. Bragg, where there is an indication that there should be a
exemption from the requirement for HEPA filtered vacuums because many
glass batch houses are currently equipped with central vacuum systems
that discharge external to the facility.

		MR. MANN:  I could -- maybe I could answer that.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Mann?

		MS. BRAGG:  Thank you, Mr. Mann.

		MR. MANN:  This is William Mann.  I'm sorry, your question exactly
about that was?

		MR. O'CONNOR:  Yes.  I was just trying to get a better understanding
of the purpose of those vacuum systems.

		MR. MANN:  General cleanup in the batch house for raw materials,
including silica, may -- had that spilled, or from a maintenance
activity, for example, some of the things that we saw in the pictures,
from where, in certain areas, it might get -- so you have materials
that escape and are on the floor, or otherwise in the area.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  Okay.  Thank you.

		DR. COBLE:  Yes, Joe Coble.  Regarding your statement for exemption
for maintenance activities, would you make a distinction between the
emergency type clean-up versus scheduled preventive maintenance?  And is
it your position that even for scheduled maintenance, that you
anticipate in advance that engineering controls could not be brought in
for that type of activity?  Is that --

		MR. S. SMITH:  This is Steve Smith with Verallia.  For some scheduled
maintenance activities, the answer is yes, we can engineer that out.
For some scheduled maintenance activities, no we cannot.

		DR. COBLE:  Okay.

		MR. S. SMITH:  And it kind of depends on the schedule.  If it's
something that we do every three days, that's not so hard for us to
predict.  If it's something that's scheduled once every nine months,
it's going to be pretty difficult to put in a $500,000 piece of
equipment on the top of a tower or something.  So it depends on the
activity and how frequent.

		DR. COBLE:  Yes.  But, you know, engineering controls could be
something like a HEPA vacuum, that would be used to -- for the
maintenance.  And if you have an exemption from engineering controls,
you wouldn't forego that and just use a respirator?

		MR. S. SMITH:  Again, it would depend on the activity that we're
trying to process here.  There's so many different kinds of things, and
the frequency of all of them is different.  It depends on which one
we're looking at, and also, where is it.  If it's on the main floor,
that's a real easy thing.  If it's on the top of one of those towers,
it's going to be kind of difficult to engineer that for something you go
up there once every nine months for.

		DR. COBLE:  Yes.  And just one last question, how often do your
maintenance folks actually use respirators?  Is it on a daily basis?

		MR. S. SMITH:  Bill?

		MR. MANN:  Again, it -- they primarily need them -- I would say no,
not on a daily basis, absolutely not on a daily basis.

		DR. COBLE:  Right.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  And that's Mr. Mann responding.

		MR. MANN:  I'm sorry, yes.  William Mann.  Really, it again, speaks to
the infrequent nature of these issues.  Certainly when there is one of
these unplanned breakdowns, that is when they wear the respirators.

		DR. COBLE:  Okay.  Thank you.

		MS. KRAMER:  I just have a couple of questions, and then I believe
I'll pass it back to Robert Stone.  And my name is Allison Kramer.

		This is for GPI.  You mentioned, at the beginning of your testimony,
that you all are the North American trade association, and that your
member companies employ 18,000 represented and salaried workers.  I was
just wondering if you could drill that down a little bit for us.  How
many member companies do you have?

		MS. BRAGG:  We have seven member companies, and around 40 associates.

		MS. KRAMER:  Okay --

		MS. BRAGG:  Those would be full members.  Those are manufacturing
members.

		MS. KRAMER:  Okay.  And how many of the 18,000 employees are United
States employees, are here in the U.S.?  Are they all here, or?

		MS. BRAGG:  I think that -- I believe that count is the U.S. count.

		MS. KRAMER:  Okay.  And one final question on that.  Do you know how
many plants or facilities your member companies have?

		MS. BRAGG:  We have 48 plants in 22 states.

		MS. KRAMER:  Okay.  Thank you.

		MR. STONE:  Robert Stone.  I only had a couple of questions.  First of
all, other than for maintenance and upset conditions or malfunctions, do
you have any other types of overexposures with silica in your
operations?

		MR. S. SMITH:  Steve Smith.  We've been working at this -- we felt
this standard would be something that would be coming down the pike, so
we've been working on this for a while.  My understanding is, the answer
to that question is no.  Our day-to-day operations, we can meet this
standard.

		MR. STONE:  Okay.  And do you currently provide training of a type
that might be similar to what's suggested in the proposed rule, or any
training at all?

		MR. MANN:  William Mann.  We currently discuss silica in terms of
hazardous communication and in terms of our respiratory program, nothing
specific to silica as a standalone program.

		MR. STONE:  Okay.  That's it, thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Any further questions from OSHA?

		MR. O'CONNOR:  No further questions from OSHA.  We'd like to thank the
panelists, and we appreciate your patience.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Ms. Bragg --

		MR. S. SMITH:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Mr. Smith, thank you very much.  You're excused.
That will conclude Day 9 of the Silica Hearing.  Today's date is March
28.  We'll resume Monday morning, March 31, at 9:30 a.m.  See you all
then.

		(Whereupon, at 6:15 p.m., the hearing was continued, to resume on
Monday, March 31, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

	This is to certify that the attached proceedings in the matter of:

INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE

ON OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO

RESPIRABLE CRYSTALLINE SILICA

March 28, 2014

Washington, D.C.

were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcription
thereof for the files of the United States Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety & Health Administration.

				 							    					____________________________

				    	ED SCHWEITZER

				    	Official Reporter

_________________________

		Continued

 PAGE   2866

 PAGE   2866

  PAGE  2866

Free State Reporting, Inc.

1378 Cape St. Claire Road

Annapolis, MD 21409

(410) 974-0947

Free State Reporting, Inc.

1378 Cape Saint Claire Road

Annapolis, MD 21409

(410) 974-0947

			   PAGE  2866