[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 4, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47032-47035]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15970]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0609; FRL-10012-54-Region 9]

Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Ajo PM10
Planning Area; Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve the ``Ajo PM10 Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan (May 3, 2019)'' (``Ajo PM10 Maintenance
Plan'' or ``Plan'') as a revision to the state implementation plan
(SIP) for the State of Arizona. The Ajo PM10 Maintenance
Plan includes, among other elements, an emissions inventory consistent
with attainment, a maintenance demonstration, contingency provisions,
and a demonstration that contributions from motor vehicle emissions to
PM10 in the Ajo planning area are insignificant. The EPA is
also approving the State of Arizona's request to redesignate the Ajo
planning area from nonattainment to attainment for the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') for particulate matter
of ten microns or less (PM10). Lastly, the EPA is taking
final action to delete the area designation for Ajo for the revoked
NAAQS for total suspended particulate (TSP) because the designation is
no longer necessary. The EPA is finalizing these actions because the
SIP revision meets the applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act
(CAA or ``Act'') for maintenance plans and because the State has met
the requirements under the Act for redesignation of a nonattainment
area to attainment with respect to the Ajo planning area.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 3, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0609. 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 (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Graham, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 972-3877, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On June 4, 2020 (85 FR 34381), under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA
proposed to approve the Ajo PM10 Maintenance Plan submitted
by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on May 10,
2019, as a revision to the Arizona SIP.\1\ In so doing, we found that
the Ajo PM10 Maintenance Plan adequately demonstrates that
the area will maintain the PM10 NAAQS for 10 years beyond
redesignation and includes sufficient contingency provisions to
promptly correct any violation of the PM10 standards that
occurs after redesignation, and thereby meets the requirements for
maintenance plans under CAA section 175A. We also proposed to approve
the attainment inventory as meeting the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(3), and to approve the demonstration that the PM10
contributions from motor vehicle emissions to PM10 in the
Ajo planning area are insignificant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ADEQ submitted the Ajo PM10 Maintenance Plan
electronically to the EPA on May 10, 2019. ADEQ's transmittal letter
for the Ajo PM10 Maintenance Plan is dated May 8, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our June 4, 2020 proposed rule, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D),
we proposed to grant the ADEQ's request to redesignate the Ajo
PM10 planning area from ``nonattainment'' to ``attainment''
for the PM10 standards. We proposed to do so based on our
conclusion that the Ajo planning area has attained the PM10
standards based on the most recent three-year period (2017-2019) of
quality-assured, certified, and complete PM10 data; that the
relevant portions of the Arizona SIP are, or will be as part of this
action, fully approved; that the improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable emissions reductions; \2\ that Arizona has
met all requirements applicable to the Ajo planning area with respect
to section 110 and part D of the CAA if we finalize our approval of the
attainment inventory in the Ajo PM10 Maintenance Plan; that
based on our proposed approval as described above, the Ajo
PM10 Maintenance Plan meets the requirements for maintenance
plans under section 175A of the CAA; and that therefore, Arizona has
met the criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for
the Ajo PM10 planning area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As discussed in our proposal, the Pima County Board of
Supervisors adopted Pima County Code (PCC) Section 17.16.125
(``Inactive Mineral Tailings Impoundment and Slag Storage Area
within the Ajo PM10 Planning Area'') to provide for
continued maintenance and enforcement of measures already
implemented to control windblown dust from the tailings impoundment
and slag storage area (85 FR 34381, 34382). On June 23, 2020, the
Region IX Regional Administrator signed a final rule approving PCC
Section 17.16.125 as a revision to the Arizona SIP. The signed final
rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register, but upon
its effective date, the requirements therein will become permanent
and enforceable for the purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, we proposed to delete the area designation for Ajo for the
revoked NAAQS for TSP.
    Please see our June 4, 2020 proposed rule for a detailed discussion
of the background for these actions, and the rationale for approval of
the Ajo PM10 Maintenance Plan, for granting the ADEQ's
request for redesignation of the Ajo planning area to attainment, and
for deleting the TSP designation for Ajo.

II. Public Comments

    Our June 4, 2020 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment
period that closed on July 6, 2020. We received one comment during this
period from the Pima Association of Governments supporting our proposal
to find that the Ajo PM10 Maintenance Plan adequately
demonstrates that PM10 contributions from motor vehicle
emissions to the PM10 air quality problem in the Ajo
nonattainment area are insignificant.

III. Final Action

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons set forth in our
June 4, 2020 proposed rule, the EPA is taking final action to approve
the Ajo PM10 Maintenance Plan as a revision to the Arizona
SIP. The EPA finds that the maintenance demonstration showing how the
area will continue to attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS for 10
years beyond redesignation, and the contingency provisions describing
the actions that the ADEQ will take in the event of a future monitored
violation, meet all applicable requirements for maintenance plans and
related contingency provisions in CAA section 175A. The EPA is also
approving the attainment inventory as meeting the requirement of CAA
section 172(c)(3), and the demonstration that the PM10
contributions from motor vehicle emissions to PM10 in the
Ajo planning area are insignificant.
    Second, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are taking final action
to grant ADEQ's request, which accompanied the submittal of the
maintenance plan, to redesignate the Ajo PM10 nonattainment
area to attainment for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. We are doing
so based on our conclusion that the area has met the five criteria for
redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Our conclusion in this
regard is in turn based on our determination that the area has attained
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS; that relevant portions of the
Arizona SIP are, or will be as part of this action, fully approved;
that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions; that Arizona has met all requirements
applicable to the Ajo PM10 planning area with respect to
section 110 and part D of the CAA upon final approval of the attainment
inventory in the Ajo PM10 Maintenance Plan; and based on our
approval (as part of this action) of the Ajo PM10
Maintenance Plan.
    Lastly, the EPA is taking final action to delete the area
designation for Ajo for the revoked national standards for TSP because
the designation is no longer necessary.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographic area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. Redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the 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 CAA.
Accordingly, these actions merely approve a state plan and
redesignation request as meeting federal requirements and do not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For these
reasons, these actions:
     Are 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);
     Are 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.);
     Are 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.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, there are no areas of Indian country within the Ajo
planning area, and the state plan is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the 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), because redesignation is an action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements
on tribes, affect any existing sources of air pollution on tribal
lands, nor impair the maintenance of NAAQS in tribal lands.
    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. The 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 5, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

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

    Dated: July 17, 2020.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends Chapter I,
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 D--Arizona

0
2. In Sec.  52.120 amend paragraph (e) by adding to table 1, under the
table heading ``Part D Elements and Plans (Other than for the
Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas)'' an entry for ``SIP Revision:
Ajo PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan (May 3,
2019) (excluding Appendix C)'' after the entry for ``Arizona State
Implementation Plan Revision: Miami Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, excluding Appendix D'' to read as
follows.

Sec.  52.120   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       Table 1--EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
       [Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
                                   geographic or
     Name of SIP provision         nonattainment     State submittal   EPA approval date        Explanation
                                   area or title/          date
                                      subject
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
               Part D Elements and Plans (Other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas)

                                                  * * * * * * *
SIP Revision: Ajo PM10           Ajo PM10 Air       May 10, 2019.....  August 4, 2020,    Appendix C includes
 Redesignation Request and        Quality Planning                      [Insert Federal    Pima County Code
 Maintenance Plan (May 3, 2019)   Area.                                 Register           (PCC) Section
 (excluding Appendix C).                                                citation].         17.16.125 and the
                                                                                related public
                                                                                process
                                                                                documentation. PCC
                                                                                Section 17.16.125 was
                                                                                approved in a
                                                                                separate action and
                                                                                is listed in table 7
                                                                                of 40 CFR 52.120(c).
                                                                                ADEQ's submittal
                                                                                letter date is the
                                                                                same as the date of
                                                                                adoption, May 8,
                                                                                2019. Submitted
                                                                                electronically on May
                                                                                10, 2019.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements
  (excluding Part D Elements and Plans), Part D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or
  Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas.

* * * * *

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

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

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

0
4. Section 81.303 is amended by:
0
a. Removing in the table under ``Arizona--TSP,'' the entry for ``Ajo'';
0
b. Revising in the table under ``Arizona--TSP,'' the entry for ``Rest
of State''; and
0
c. Revising in the table under ``Arizona--PM-10,'' the entry under Pima
County for ``Ajo planning area''.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  81.303   Arizona.

                                                  Arizona--TSP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Does not meet   Does not meet
           Designated area                primary        secondary       Cannot be       Better than national
                                         standards       standards      classified             standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Rest of State \2\...................  ..............  ..............  ..............  \1\ X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA designation replaces State designation.
\2\ Excluding Ajo (T12S, R6W).

* * * * *

                                                 Arizona--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Designation                          Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Date                   Type               Date            Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Pima County:

                                                  * * * * * * *
    Ajo planning area.............  September 3, 2020....  Attainment...........
Township T12S, R6W, and the
 following sections of Township
 T12S, R5W:
    a. Sections 6-8...............
    b. Sections 17-20, and........
    c. Sections 29-32.............

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-15970 Filed 8-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 3136]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2137-019; ER14-2798-011; ER14-2799-011; ER10-
2131-019; ER10-2138-019; ER10-2139-019; ER10-2140-019; ER10-2141-019;
ER14-2187-013; ER16-1720-004; ER15-103-007; ER18-140-002.
    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Beech Ridge Energy II LLC,
Beech Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Grand Ridge Energy LLC, Grand Ridge
Energy II LLC, Grand Ridge Energy III LLC, Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC,
Grand Ridge Energy V LLC, Grand Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Invenergy
Energy Management LLC, Invenergy Nelson LLC, Lackawanna Energy Center
LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Facts under Market-Based Rate
Authority of Beech Ridge Energy LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 1/16/18.
    Accession Number: 20180116-5286.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3401-014; ER11-3576-015.
    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc., Golden Spread
Panhandle Wind Ranch, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-material Change in Status of Golden
Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc., et. al.
    Filed Date: 1/16/18.
    Accession Number: 20180116-5284.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-654-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of Georgia-Pacific
Construct Agmt--Camas to be effective 3/31/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/16/18.
    Accession Number: 20180116-5194.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-655-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a Master JUA for
Distribution Underbuild with Butler County REC to be effective 3/19/
2018.
    Filed Date: 1/16/18.
    Accession Number: 20180116-5215.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-656-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1st Amendment to CDWR WPA
for the Thermalito Restoration Project (SA 275) to be effective 1/18/
2018.
    Filed Date: 1/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180117-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-658-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Calpine NITSA Rev 11 to be
effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180117-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-659-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a Master JUA for
Distribution Underbuild with Iowa Lakes Elec Coop to be effective 3/19/
2018.
    Filed Date: 1/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180117-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-660-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3390 SWPA & South Central
MCN Interconnection Agreement to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 1/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180117-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-661-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-01-17_Ameren-Farmington
1st Rev WDS to be effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180117-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-663-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of SA No.
3284; Queue No. W3-139 to be effective 4/3/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180117-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/7/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-664-000.
    Applicants: Steamboat Hills LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Petition for Approval of
Initial Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 2/23/2018.
    Filed Date: 1/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180117-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/7/18.

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

    Dated: January 17, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01103 Filed 1-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 207 (Monday, October 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64001-64003]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25449]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0010]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 35 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted September 30, 2014. The exemptions
expire on September 30, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, R.N., Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on
January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

II. Background

    On August 29, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (79 FR 51643). That notice listed 35 applicants' case
histories. The 35 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 35 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 35
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including prosthetic eye, retinal detachment, corneal scar,
aphakia, exotropia, amblyopia, complete loss of vision, cataract,
retinal scar, esotropia, secondary amblyopia, refractive amblyopia,
macular degeneration, retinal sclopeteria, myopic astigmatism,
strabismic amblyopia, and macular scar. In most cases, their eye
conditions were not recently developed. Twenty-five of the applicants
were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since
childhood.
    The 10 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had it for a range of two to 43 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 35 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from 2.5 to 42
years. In the past three years, two of the drivers were involved in
crashes and two were convicted for moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the August 29, 2014
notice (79 FR 51643).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level

of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the
exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate
driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate
commerce. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater
level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these
drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him
or her to driving in intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 35 applicants, two of the drivers were involved in crashes and two
were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 35 applicants listed in the notice of August
29, 2014 (79 FR 51643).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 35 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 35 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):

Ronald A. Bolyard (WV)
Jackson C. Braithwaite (OH)
Howard T. Bubel (ND)
Raymond E. Burrus (CO)
Dionicio Carrera (TX)
Lee A. Clason (NE)
Jeff W. Claussen (IL)
David A. Coburn, Sr. (VT)
Edward Cunningham (MI)
Eric P. Demers (NH)
Martin H. Duncan (WA)
Ronald D. Holshouser (MO)
Oscar Juarez (ID)
Kelly R. Knopf, Sr. (SC)
Edward J. Kosior (NY)
Todd A. Krough (IA)
Lester E. Lathrop III (MN)

Mathew A. Lind (PA)
Frazier A. Luckerson (GA)
Carl M. Lude (ME)
Ross A. Miceli II (PA)
Timothy L. Miller (IA)
Donald L. Minney (OH)
Philip L. Neff (PA)
Brian S. Nelson (MN)
Peter S. Rosenkranse III (NY)
Antonio Sanchez (NJ)
Lawrence P. Siegler (MN)
Rick J. Smart (NH)
Clifford W. Smith (OR)
Robert L. Strange (NC)
David L. Von Hagen (IA)
Donald Wallace (IL)
Loran J. Weiler (IA)
Frederick J. Zuech (NY)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (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 before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued On: October 16, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-25449 Filed 10-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38329-38330]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15400]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC21-28-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-921); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-921 (Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data
from Regional Transmission Organization and Independent System
Operators).

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due August 19,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on FERC-921 to OMB through
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Desk Officer. Please identify the OMB control number (1902-
0257) in the subject line. Your comments should be sent within 30 days
of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Please submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No.
IC21-28-000) to the Commission as noted below. Electronic filing
through http://www.ferc.gov, is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: OMB submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain; Using the search function under the ``Currently Under Review
field,'' select Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; click ``submit''
and select ``comment'' to the right of the subject collection.
    FERC submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user assistance,
contact FERC Online Support by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-921, Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data from Regional
Transmission Organization and Independent System Operators.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0257.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-921 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The collection of data in FERC-921 is an effort by the
Commission, implemented under Order No. 760,\1\ to detect potential
anti-competitive or manipulative behavior or ineffective market rules
by requiring Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and Independent
System Operators (ISO) to electronically submit, on a continuous basis,
data relating to physical and virtual offers and bids, market awards,
resource outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift factors, financial
transmission rights, internal bilateral contracts, uplift, and
interchange pricing. Although provision was made by the Commission that
market monitoring units (MMUs) may provide datasets, all data for this
collection has (and is expected to continue to) come from each RTO or
ISO and not the MMUs. Therefore, any associated burden is counted as
burden on RTO and ISO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Enhancement of Electricity Market Surveillance and Analysis
through Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data from Regional
Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, Order
No. 760, 139 FERC ] 61,053 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the ongoing delivery of data under FERC-921 is continuous and
routine, each RTO or ISO makes sporadic changes to its individual
market with Commission approval. When those changes occur, the RTO or
ISO may need to change the data being routinely sent to the Commission
to ensure compliance with Order No. 760. Such changes typically require
respondents to alter the ongoing delivery of data under FERC-921. The
burden associated with a change varies considerably based on the
significance of the specific change; therefore, the estimate below is
intended to reflect the incremental burden for an average change. Based
on historical patterns, staff estimates there to be about one and a
half changes of this nature per RTO or ISO per year.
    Type of Respondent: Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and
Independent System Operators (ISO).
    The Commission published a 60-day Paperwork Reduction Act Notice
\2\ on May 13, 2021 and no comments were received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 86 FR 26220.

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

    Estimate of Annual Burden: \3\ The Commission estimates the total
annual burden and cost \4\ for this information collection as follows.
The ongoing electronic delivery of data requires the following
occupations (which includes wages and benefits): \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further
explanation of what is included in the information collection
burden, refer to Title 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \4\ Costs (for wages and benefits) are based on the mean wage
estimate by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Occupational
Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) program from May 2020 (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm.) and benefits information,
accounting for 70.3% of average employment (released March 2021) for
private industry workers (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm). We estimate the total time required per change to be
320 hours. Because a response encompasses one year where there are,
on average, 1.5 changes, the total time per response is 480 hours
(1.5 x 320 hours).
    \5\ The loaded hourly wage for each occupation is as follows:
     Computer Systems Analysts: $47.63 (base hourly wage) /
70.3% (benefits) = $67.75.
     Legal: $100 (base hourly wage) / 70.3% (benefits) =
$142.25.
     Database Administrators and Architects: $50.65 (base
hourly wage) / 70.3% (benefits) = $71.92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     75% of the time is spent by Computer Systems Analysts
(Occupational Code: 15-1211) at $67.75/hr.,
     12.5% of the time is spent by Legal (Occupation Code: 23-
0000) at $142.25/hr., and
     12.5% of the time is spent by Database Administrators and
Architects (Occupational Code: 15-1245) at $71.92/hr.,
    Therefore, we use the weighted hourly cost (for wages and benefits)
of $77.59.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Each RTO/ISO electronically submits data daily. To match
with past filings, we are considering the collection of daily
responses to be a single response.
    \7\ Each RTO/ISO is estimated to make one and a half changes
yearly. To be consistent with the formulation that the submissions
over the course of a year constitute a single response, for the
purpose of this calculation, we are assuming that each response
requires one and a half changes over the course of the year and
estimating burden accordingly.
    \8\ The rounded weighted hourly cost breakdown includes: [(0.75
* $67.75) + (0.125 * $142.25) + (0.125 * $71.92)] = $77.59.

                FERC-921 (Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data From Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Annual number                                                                       Annual cost
               Category                   Number of     of responses    Total number    Average annual burden &    Total average annual   per respondent
                                         respondents   per respondent   of responses       cost per response       burden hours & cost          ($)
                                                  (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).....................  (3) * (4) = (5)........       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ongoing electronic delivery of data..               6               1           \6\ 6  52 hrs.; $4,034.68......  312 hrs.; $24,208.08...       $4,034.68
Data Delivery Changes over the year..               6               1           \7\ 6  480 hrs.; $37,243.20....  2,880 hrs.; $223,459.20       37,243.20
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................               6               2              12  ........................  3,192 hrs.; $247,667.28       41,277.88
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: July 13, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15400 Filed 7-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


and that slight temperature elevation would cause MC to vaporize more
readily than TCE.  The commenter avers that increases in solvent
consumption rate would ultimately create elevated vapor concentrations
to the carbon adsorption device thereby making recovery more difficult.
The commenter states that even though MC is cheaper per unit volume,
more MC will be required to achieve the same level of cleaning.  The
commenter also states that switching to MC also raises worker safety
issues because of OSHA requirements.

The commenter also states that the control equipment retrofits and
machine replacement technologies identified in the proposed rule are for
the typical HSC equipment addressed by the 1994 HSC MACT, not continuous
web cleaning machines, systems or facilities.  The commenter states that
making modifications such as modifying freeboard rations, adding working
mode covers, or retrofitting freeboard refrigeration devices are
inapplicable because technically, no freeboard exists and the cleaning
devices are enclosed, with the exception of entrance and exit points
during normal operations.  The commenter further states that the
vacuum-to-vacuum systems is a technology only appropriate for batch
cleaners and is not applicable to continuous web cleaning machine
operations.  The commenter believes that EPA did not evaluate the costs
and technological feasibility of the facility-wide emission limits on
the continuous web subcategory.

Commenter (OAR-2002-0009-0102) stated that vacuum-to-vacuum cleaning
machines are not feasible compliance options for the narrow tube
manufacturing industry because of the large size of their halogenated
solvent cleaning machines and the fact that the vacuum-to-vacuum
technology is not currently available in the machines sizes required.

Commenters (OAR-2002-0009-0095, 0098 and 0102) states that solvent
switching is not a valid option for narrow tube manufacturers.
Regardless of whether MC could be used in its current process and
produce acceptable final product for its customers, the commenter
predicts they could not become compliant even after extensive
retrofitting.  The commenter also adds that retrofitting will not
provide enough of a decrease in emissions to allow compliance.  The
commenter added that retrofitting combined with solvent switching would
not ascertain compliance.  The commenter states there is no modification
available to allow compliance.  The commenter states that their concerns
regarding compliance are with Option 1.  Compliance with Option 2 would
be either more costly, less feasible or a combination of the two.

One commenter (OAR-2002-0009-0095) stated that in the analysis of the
costs (or savings) associated with switching solvents EPA erroneously
based its estimates of solvent consumption on measurements from an
idling machine.  The commenter asserted that idling losses do not
provide an accurate reflection of solvent consumption since the bulk of
emissions occur when parts are being cleaned.  The commenter stated that
a switch from PCE or TCE to MC would result in higher emissions in a
working machine because of MC’s lower vapor density.  The commenter
also stated that emissions would be slightly higher with a switch from
PCE to TCE.

Commenter (OAR-2002-0009-0098) stated that retrofitting will not provide
enough of a decrease in emissions to allow compliance.  The commenter,
like many tube manufacturers, already has retrofitted its machine so
that it greatly exceeds the base MACT requirements.  These retrofits
reduced emissions, but our experience suggests further retrofitting will
not provide the required reduction in emissions.  Modifications to the
current system still would not allow compliance.   The commenter states
that they already employ a closed-loop system with significant
prevention and capture of solvent vapor emissions.  The only remaining
option for modification of the equipment is an increase in the freeboard
ratio from 1 to 1.5.  When the commenter increased freeboard ratio from
0.75 to 1, the result was a 10% reduction in emissions.  Moving to a
freeboard ratio of 1.5, as noted above, is not likely to reduce
emissions enough to make a difference.

The commenter also stated that retrofitting combined with solvent
switching still will not achieve compliance with the proposed emissions
limits.  Upon considering the 29% increase in solvent emissions after
switching to MC, there is no modification available to the commenter
that would allow compliance.  As noted above, the only retrofit
available to the commenter under the proposed rule is an increase in the
freeboard ratio from 1 to 1.5.  There is no evidence or any other reason
to believe the increase in freeboard ratio from 1 to 1.5 could
accomplish the requisite reduction (103,000 lbs/46,000 kg to 88,000
lbs/40,000 kg) in emissions that would possibly achieve the proposed
40,000 kg methylene chloride limitation.

The commenter added that EPA’s assessment of the viability and
cost-effectiveness of vacuum technology is flawed.  The commenter stated
that EPA assumes the technology is applicable, proven, effective and
efficient in all applications.  EPA’s determination that costs and
cost-effectiveness for any sized machine appropriately can be based upon
replacement of an averaged-sized open-top machine (2.5m2) is entirely
inappropriate.  The systems will not replace open-top machines
one-to-one, and their design and use requirements do not allow
replacement with similar space footprints in the industrial processes of
many large-scale productions.  Further, it has not been proven in, and
it has not been examined for, application in large-scale productions,
much less the specialized narrow-tube industry.

The commenter stated that EPA’s use of an “average size” system is
inappropriate for purposes of cost estimates or use comparisons.  The
average system upon which EPA has made capital cost assumptions is
assumed to be one with a solvent-air interface equivalent of 2.5m2.
This cannot appropriately be compared to the single open-top machine use
by  the commenter.  The commenter’s operations require an opening
exceeding 50 feet in length and a load capacity of several tons.  The
current machine used by the commenter has a solvent-air interface of
11.5 m2, more than four and one-half times the size of the “average”
machine’s opening.  Costs for machines that could meet the
commenter’s larger-sized requirements may not be estimated based on
the estimated costs for vacuum-to-vacuum machines that are so much
smaller.

The commenter indicated its receipt of  an estimate from Tiyoda-Serec
(the same manufacturer whose machines were the basis for EPA’s cost
estimates) for a machine long enough to meet the company’s length
requirements.  The commenter stated that the machine’s volume capacity
was not sufficient to meet its facility’s production demands.
Further, the commenter stated that they did not know of any
vacuum-to-vacuum machine of such size that is able to cycle at a rate
high enough to keep up with its current production levels, much less
full-capacity production.  Despite Tiyoda-Serec’s certainty in its own
ability, the commenter stated that the fact remains there is not a
proven, dependable machine of the size and production requirements
within the small-diameter tube industry.  Further, because of the
smaller capacity of even a machine of the appropriate length, the
Tiyoda-Serec machine would not be able to process as much material as
does the commenter’s facility current MACT-plus degreaser.  This
limitation, combined with the fact the vacuum-to-vacuum machine would
require significantly longer time for each cycle, places an unacceptable
limitation on the capacity and throughput of the entire operation.  The
only way this technology could be applied, assuming the unproven machine
quoted by TSC would perform as advertised, is through multiple machines
as replacements for each MACT-plus, closed-loop, open-top vapor
degreaser.  TSC has recommended that 22”x51.5’ machines would be the
most cost-effective, proven and time-efficient machine for Plymouth Tube
Company’s use, despite the fact that one machine clearly would fall
far short of Plymouth Tube Company’s production requirements.  That
particular 22”x51.5’ machine has a cleaning chamber volume of 136ft3
or 3.9m3.

The result of the above comparative analysis is this:  Using EPA’s
conversion formula, and given the manufacturer’s recommendations for
cost-efficiency and effectiveness, Plymouth Tube would have to purchase
multiple machines to replace the one in current operation.  The 15.75m3
size coming from EPA’s conversion formula can be met only through the
purchase of four TSC machines sized at 3.9m3 each.  Plymouth Tube
Company has received a recent quote of nearly $938,000 per machine, with
additional spare parts costs of about $98,000, or a total of $1,036,000
per machine.  According to TSC, it may be possible to combine pumps,
valves and tanks for two machines.  Although the operating and
maintenance costs could be increased, the capital costs could be
decreased.  TSC has suggested a dual-chamber machine that, all other
things being equal, would have a base cost of approximately two-thirds
the price of two fully-equipped individual machines.

Comment:  Commenter (OAR-2002-0009-0098) stated that EPA has misapplied
a report regarding smaller units by relying on it to develop proposed
standards for all sized degreasers.  The commenter believes that EPA
relied upon a December 28, 2001, case study entitled “Pollution
Prevention Technology Profile Closed Loop Vapor Degreasing” prepared
by the Northeast Waste Management Official’s Association (NEWMOA).
Regardless of whether there is sufficient basis to do so within the
underlying study, EPA has determined the following:  i) cost estimates
may be applied geometrically to reduce costs as machines increase in
size; ii) solvent savings may be based on a constant solvent unit cost;
iii) open-top vapor degreasers all run at similar efficiencies, at least
as concerns operational costs and solvent emissions; and iv) Replacement
of MACT-compliant open-top vapor degreasers with vacuum-to-vacuum
machines would result in lower costs for hazardous waste disposal,
compliance and labor costs.  The commenter believes each of these
determinations to be wrong.  Because the entire argument regarding the
cost savings and effectiveness of the switch to vacuum-to-vacuum
machines is based on these five determinations, the commenter argues the
entire analysis is incorrect, fatally flawed, and must be removed from
consideration as a support of the proposed revision to the NESHAPs
regulations.

The commenter added that cost estimates cannot be applied geometrically
based on size regardless of applications and uses.  The vacuum-to-vacuum
machines considered in the EPA discussions involve reduction in
atmospheric pressure to less than one (1) torr.  The commenter observes
that the larger the machine, in terms of volume, the greater the cost.
The ratio of volume to cost, however, is not fixed and does not support
a geometric scaling down of cost estimates from smaller machines to
larger machines.  EPA’s cost estimates are “based on the replacement
of a solvent cleaning machine with a solvent-air interface area of 2.5
m2, which is the average size of the solvent cleaning machines for which
we have size data.”  (71 Fed. Reg. at 47682, emphasis added.)  The
costs also were derived from estimates collected during 2005.

The commenter state their first observation of EPA’s cost estimates
and states their beleif  that they are based on estimates of machines of
a generic size and purpose.  The commenter provides costs based on
actual quotes.  Further, the quotes received by the commenter are for
real, purpose-built machines and come from the very same company EPA
consulted, Tiyoda-Serec Corporation.  Clearly, because EPA relied
heavily upon TSC’s generic estimates for its economic analysis of the
effects of the proposed rule, these true quotes from that same company
must be given at least equivalent consideration by EPA when reviewing
the real cost analysis faced by companies in Plymouth Tube Company’s
position.

The commenter states that it appears many of EPA’s cost estimates are
based on one email provided to Chris Sarsony by Bill McCormick,
President of Tiyoda-Serec Corporation.   This June 27, 2005, email
contains only minimal information, and EPA has incorrectly interpreted
the information to suggest applicable and appropriate costs for
vacuum-to-vacuum machines.  For instance, when Mr. McCormick responded
to a request for cost information about the “AT Wall unit”, he
advised that it was a dual chamber unit.  It is our understanding, after
discussions with TSC, that such a unit shares pumps, tanks, etc.  It
cannot be considered the price equivalent of either two 20ft3 machines
or one 40ft3 machine.  According to quotes actually received by Plymouth
Tube Company, there can be a considerable cost difference between two
136ft3 machines and one, dual-136ft3-chamber machine.  Further, the same
email includes reference to a 380ft3 machine with a cost of $850,000,
where Plymouth Tube Company received a real quote from TSC for a similar
sized machine (364ft3) but at a cost of approximately $1,634,000, not
including necessary spares that would bring the cost to about $1.77
million – more than twice the amount for a slightly smaller machine.
It is critical to note all of these numbers came from the same source.
The difference is believed to be the purpose for which each machine is
built and used.

The commenters second observation is this:  The only parties to whom
this proposed rule would apply compose the largest 118 machines of the
1,900 machines in use, or only six percent (6%) of the population from
which the “average” machine is found.  This number is derived by
applying EPA’s statement that 31% of the population of the 380 to whom
the rule would apply would choose vacuum-to-vacuum as the method of
compliance.  Underlying this finding is EPA’s assumption that the
largest emitters (the largest machines) are the ones who will not be
able to comply by utilizing the other options.  In this assumption, we
agree with EPA’s position.  Any cost estimates based on an average
cost for replacing 1,900 machines is not properly applied to only the
largest 6% of that population.  Cost estimates should be based on the
costs of machines to be purchased by those actually affected by the
proposed rule.

The commenters third observation notes that larger machines require
considerably more material and significantly greater engineering.
Installation costs also are significantly greater for larger machines.
Neither cost piece may be assumed to drop off geometrically as the size
increases.  Not all open-top vapor degreasing machines with solvent-air
interfaces will have the same volume, much less the same size.  The same
can be said for vacuum-to-vacuum machines.  This statement has even
greater application given the size and volume of machines used in the
tube industry.  The commenter’s current open-top vapor degreaser has a
solvent-air interface area of 11.5 m2, based on the opening width of two
feet and length of 62 feet.  Using EPA’s formula, this solvent-air
interface would have an equivalent cleaning capacity volume (in a
vacuum-to-vacuum machine) of approximately 15.75 m3.  These calculations
out-pace the estimates given by EPA, which offer estimates of machines
no larger than one having a cleaning capacity of 10.76 m3.  All that
these calculations establish is the following:  No one has built a
vacuum-to-vacuum machine for small diameter tube of the size necessary
to replace the size of open-top vapor degreaser used by the commenter.

The commenter’s fourth observation is that the length and the diameter
of the tubes cleaned that makes the difference, not the volume of the
cleaning chamber.  Note the earlier discussion regarding Wolverine Tube.
 In that company’s applications, the tube lengths are much shorter.
Further, because the tube is copper, not stainless steel, it will not
require the same type of cleaning.  Stainless steel tube subject to
cold-drawing processes will require different lubricants that have to be
removed from all surfaces, including the interior of very long and very
narrow tube.

The commenter’s fifth observation:  No one has built, much less
proven, a vacuum-to-vacuum machine on this scale for narrow-tube
applications.  In an effort to quantify the costs of compliance, the
commenter sought a quote from Tiyoda-Serec Corporation (TSC) for its
AirlessTM machine.  TSC has not built a machine large enough to match
the volume requirement dictated by application of the conversion formula
noted in the supporting documents.  EPA’s formula states Plymouth Tube
Company’s machine is equivalent to a vacuum-to-vacuum machine sized at
15.75 m3.  TSC’s largest machine built to date has a cleaning chamber
approximating 12 m3.  TSC has recommended that Plymouth Tube Company not
consider building a machine as large as 15.75 m3.  Instead, TSC has
suggested multiple machines would be less expensive and more efficient.
The base machine suggested, in multiple, by TSC would have a cleaning
chamber volume of approximately 3.9 m3, or roughly one-fourth the
volume/SAI equivalency of Plymouth Tube Company’s current
Baron-Blakeslee open-top vapor degreaser (noted above as 15.75 m3).  As
noted elsewhere in these comments, the installation of a machine with
horizontal loading allowing the placement of tubes in excess of 50 feet
in length will require significant additional capital improvements.
These have been preliminarily estimated by Plymouth Tube Company at
approximately $607,000.

The sum of the commenter’s observations and investigations on this
question is that EPA’s cost estimates have no basis in fact and no
valid application toward compliance costs of tube manufacturers who
would seek to replace open-top vapor degreasers of the requisite size
(particularly considering length and production requirements) with
vacuum-to-vacuum machines.

Response:  In response to these comments received on our proposal and
subsequent NODA, we re-examined the data and assumptions used to
estimate the costs presented in the Preamble to our proposed rule.  We
determined that in a number of instances the data and assumptions that
we used to develop our costs estimates at proposal were no longer
relevant or valid.  As a result, we modified our cost estimates as
follows:

We used the finalized 2002 NEI database containing facility and
emissions data as the source of our baseline emissions estimates.  We
removed aerospace manufacture and maintenance facilities, narrow tube
manufacturing facilities, facilities using continuous web cleaning
machines, and military equipment maintenance facilities from the
database for the purpose of estimating the compliance costs for the
remaining facilities. (Sections III.A.3 and III.B.3 explain our
rationale for removing these facilities from this analysis.)

We changed our assumptions about the percent reductions in emissions
that can be achieved by vacuum-to-vacuum machines from 97 percent to 95
percent.

In the proposal, we assigned no operation and maintenance cost to
vacuum-to-vacuum machines.  Based on public comment, our cost estimates
for this final rule incorporate annual operation and maintenance costs
of $18,832 for each machine.

We updated the cost per gallon of PCE and TCE based on information
provided by commenters representing manufacturers of solvents and the
narrow tube manufacturing industry.

We added a carbon adsorption device (CAD) option that assumes a 30
percent control in emissions.  We did not have this option in the cost
assumptions we made at proposal.  We received comments that this option
may be available for some industries but that it is at least ten times
more expensive than the retrofit options we costed for the proposal.

We reduced the number of units for which solvent switching could be a
compliance option from 30 percent, used in the proposal, to 15 percent.
We also corrected our method for calculating the emission reduction
impacts and solvent savings associated with solvent switching.

After calculating revised cost estimates, we re-examined our decision as
to what level of control is necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect human health and to prevent adverse environmental
effects, as required by the second step of the residual risk process
under CAA section 112(f)(2).  In addition to the revised cost estimates,
we considered revised estimates of health risk and other health
information along with additional factors consistent with the 1989
Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989), such as technological
feasibility, uncertainties and other relevant factors as discussed at
proposal.  We re-analyzed the risk metrics using the halogenated solvent
cleaning facilities in the 2002 NEI, but removing aerospace manufacture
and maintenance facilities, narrow tube manufacturing facilities,
facilities using continuous web cleaning machines, and military depot
maintenance facilities.

At proposal we presented two options for emission limits that would
apply to all facilities in the category subject to the 1994 MACT
standards – 25,000 kg/yr MC equivalent and 40,000 kg/yr MC equivalent.
 We estimated that the 25,000 kg/yr limit would result in an emissions
reduction of 6,778 tons/year, thereby reducing the MIR to 10-in-a
million and reducing cancer incidence by 0.14-0.27 cases annually
(depending on which URE we use for PCE), at an annual cost savings $4.9
million annually or a cost savings of $724/ton HAP reduced.  Similarly,
at proposal we estimated that applying the 40,000 kg/yr limit to the
entire source category would result in an emissions reduction of 5,911
tons/yr, thereby reducing the MIR to 20-in-a million and reducing cancer
incidence by 0.12-0.23 cases annually, at an annual cost savings $5.9
million annually or a cost savings of $1,000/ton HAP reduced.

In developing the final rule, we initially re-examined the 25,000 kg/yr
and 40,000 kg/yr levels of control for the subset of the category that
excludes the four specific industry sectors identified above, using
costing assumptions revised based on public comment.  This re-analysis
uses the 2002 NEI data rather than the 1999 NEI data used in the
proposal.  We observed that although the overall reductions in MIR and
cancer incidence at these levels would be similar to those estimated at
proposal for the entire category, the substantial cost savings estimated
at proposal would increase to a slight cost.  This is a result of both
our use of specific cost assumptions at proposal that have been amended
for analyzing the cost of the final rule and the fact that four industry
sectors are now being considered separately in this final rule.
Specifically, for the 25,000 kg/yr limit, our analysis of the subset of
the category that excludes the four specific industry sectors shows the
same reduction in MIR (to 10-in-a million) and similar estimated
reduction in cancer incidence, 0.24 cases annually, as we showed at
proposal.  In contrast, our cost analysis for this subset of the source
category shows a total annualized cost (not savings) of about $1.2
million, or a cost of about $520 per ton HAP reduced (we estimate 2,351
tons HAP reduced at this level).  Similarly, for the 40,000 kg/yr limit,
our revised analysis shows the same reduction in MIR (to 20-in-a
million), and a similar estimated reduction in cancer incidence, 0.21
cases annually, as we showed at proposal, but at an annualized cost (not
savings) of $130,000, or a cost of about $74 per ton HAP reduced (we
estimate 1,759 tons HAP reduced at this level).

Given that the cost impacts of achieving these emissions limits were
estimated to be considerably greater than what we had projected for this
rulemaking at proposal, we additionally evaluated the next less
stringent emission limit that was considered and presented in the
proposal, but not selected as one of our two proposed options for
limiting emissions from the entire category -- a 60,000 kg/yr MC
equivalent facility-wide emission limit.  For the subset of the category
that excludes the four specific industry sectors, we estimated that the
60,000 kg/yr level reduces the MIR to between 20-in-a million and
50-in-a million and reduces cancer incidence by about 0.19 cases/yr.
These risk reductions are estimated to be achieved at total annualized
cost savings of just over $1.3 million, or a savings of $832/ton of HAP
reduced (we estimate 1,594 tons HAP reduced at this level).      The
requirements set forth in the final rule will not apply to continuous
web cleaning machines, halogenated solvent cleaning machines that are
associated with the narrow tubing manufacturing industry, and aerospace
manufacturing and maintenance industry and facilities.  The requirements
of the 1994 NESHAP and its subsequent amendments (where relevant) remain
applicable to all the continuous web and halogenated solvent cleaning
machines associated with the above-noted facilities.

The comments received comments from narrow tubing manufacturing
facilities, facilities that manufacture specialized products requiring
continuous web cleaning and aerospace manufacturing and maintenance
facilities on the proposal, in response to the NODA, and in subsequent
meetings with representatives of these industries.  They submitted
information that stressed the unique nature of their cleaning
operations, the technical infeasibility, the uncertainty of our original
cost estimates, the processes involved, including review of their
process changes by other federal agencies such as FDA and FAA (see
Section IV.A. for additional discussion), and the difficulty they would
experience in complying with the proposed emission limits within the
proposed timeframe.  Based on new information they provided in response
to the NODA, including new cost information, we re-analyzed the costs
for each of these three sectors and estimated the annual cost
effectiveness of complying with emission limits they provided in
comments.

For the narrow tube manufacturers, we estimated an MIR of
70-in-a-million with an annual cancer incidence of 0.08 at their
baseline level of emissions.  Based on comments from this industry
indicating that they could reasonably accomplish a 10 percent reduction
in their current emission levels within a three-year compliance time, we
developed risk and cost estimates for that level of reduction.  We have
estimated that the MIR would decrease to approximately 60-in-a-million
with very little change expected in the annual cancer incidence.  The
annual cost effectiveness for complying with an overall 10 percent
reduction in total emissions limit would be a cost of over $3,600/ton
with total annualized costs of nearly $700,000.

For the continuous web cleaners, we estimated a baseline MIR risk level
of about 30-in-a-million with an annual cancer incidence of 0.03 cases.
Comments from this industry suggested they could achieve an 80 percent
overall control efficiency compared to their current emission levels,
within a three-year compliance period.   The current NESHAP limit
requires a 70 percent overall control efficiency.  To achieve the 80
percent overall efficiency, facilities would be required to reduce
emissions by 33 percent ((1-70%)-(1-80%)/(1-70%) = 33%).  We developed
risk and cost estimates for that level of reduction.  We have estimated
that under this scenario, the MIR would decrease to approximately
20-in-a-million with and the annual cancer incidence would decrease to
0.02 cases annually.  The annual cost effectiveness of complying with
the 80 percent overall emission control efficiency rate is over
$3,400/ton with a total annualized costs of over $600,000.

In summary, we are adopting no changes to the 1994 NESHAP, under CAA
Section 112(f) for the halogenated solvent cleaning machines used by the
above-noted specific industry sectors (i.e., aerospace, narrow tube
manufacturers, and the facilities that use continuous web cleaning
machines) because the current level of emissions control called for by
the existing NESHAP both reduces risk to acceptable levels and provides
an ample margin of safety to protect public health.  Further, additional
standards are not necessary to prevent adverse environmental effects.
The finding regarding an “ample margin of safety” is based on a
consideration of the relatively small reductions in health risks likely
to result from the feasible emission reductions we evaluated, the
additional costs required to achieve further control, the lack of
technically feasible control options for these sectors, and the time
required to comply with any requirements.

Comment:  Commenter (OAR-2002-0009-0098) stated that EPA had ignored
maintenance and operational costs.  EPA makes no mention of the
comparison of maintenance and operational costs between open-top vapor
cleaners and vacuum-to-vacuum machines.  While the costs of pumps for
agitating the solvent may remain the same, and refrigeration maintenance
may decrease, the commenter expects it will be an expensive proposition
not only to operate, but also to maintain and regularly replace, the
variety of pumps and equipment used to establish the <1 torr vacuum.
Because of the constant cycling every 35 minutes, every hour of the day,
the vacuum-to-vacuum machines and pumps are likely to require more
attention and repair than any equipment associated with open-top vapor
degreasers.  It is inappropriate to ignore such costs when preparing
estimates of costs savings when switching from one system to another.
This effect is only multiplied as it becomes apparent the commenter will
need to buy multiple machines to replace the one it currently has in
service.

Response:  In the proposal, we assigned no operation and maintenance
cost to vacuum-to-vacuum machines.  Based on public comment, our cost
estimates for this final rule incorporate annual operation and
maintenance costs of $18,832 for each machine.

Comment:  Commenter (OAR-2002-0009-0095), a halogenated solvent industry
association, stated that EPA has significantly underestimated the cost
of its suggested compliance approaches, and drastically overestimated
the potential emission reduction (and solvent savings) associated with
their implementation.  The commenter stated that the result is a
proposal that would have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small businesses.  The commenter stated that the EPA’s
analysis showed that the proposed facility-wide emissions limit would
affect 360 companies, of which at least 230 are small businesses.  The
commenter estimates that Option 1 of the proposed rule will cost the
industry $4.2 million annually (see table below), instead of resulting
in a savings of $5.9 million annually as the EPA estimates.  The
commenter stated that their estimate of the impact of Option 1 is nearly
twice as high as the Agency’s annual estimate for the emission limit
with the highest cost – 6,000 kg/yr of MC equivalents – which the
Agency’s analysis concludes would have a significant impact on small
business.	For these reasons, the commenter believes that EPA can not
make a certification of no significant impact under 5 U.S.C. §605(b)
and is required to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis, including
appointment of a small business advocacy review panel.

	Response:  The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an
agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject
to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.  Small entities include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impact of the final action on small
entities, small entity is defined as:  (1) a small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.

As mentioned earlier in this Preamble, facilities across several
industries use halogenated solvents to degrease their products,
therefore a number of size standards are utilized in this analysis.  For
the industries represented in this analysis, the employment size
standard varies from 500 to 1,500 employees.  The annual sales standard
is as low as 4 million dollars and as high as 150 million dollars.

	After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, we have concluded that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  This
conclusion is based on the economic impact of the final rule to affected
small entities in the entire halogenated solvent cleaning source
category.  The final rule is expected to affect 125 ultimate parent
entities that will be regulated as major sources.  Forty of the parent
entities, or approximately one-third, are defined as small according to
the SBA small business size standards.  None of the small firms has an
annualized cost of more than 0.7 percent of sales associated with
meeting the requirements for major sources, and 16 of the forty affected
small firms are estimated to incur no costs or have cost savings
associated with compliance with the final rule.  For more information,
please consult the economic impact analysis for this rulemaking.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

ƒ

„

Ô

W

X

Æ

옍

 hm

h”

h”

h2W

 hm

 hm

搒Ũ摧䫗±

h›

葠ː摧ⴴGЀ摧俉Q

hÚ

h‰

 h

Å

Í

Ï

옍)

hŒ

Ѐ摧俉Q

hìE

萑ː搒Ũ葠ː摧ⴴGЀ摧俉QЀ摧俉Q

hö

# hö

hö

  hö

hö

hö

hö

hÇ

hÇ

&

 h

 h

&

9

:

”

™

¦

«

Ç

Ü

 h

 h

 h

 h

6

h

h

 h

h

h

¡

õ

 h

 h

hO<

hO<

hO

hË

hË

hO

搒Ũ摧羚³

h-

h

 h

hñ

hñ

hñ

hñ

hñ

hñ

hñ

hMP

hMP

hñ

搒Ũ摧偍

萑ː搒Ũ葠ː摧偍

ഀ׆Āːሀ桤ā㜀$␸䠀$摧偍

搒Ũ摧偍

ᄀ킄ሂ桤ā㜀$␸䠀$葠ː摧偍

hMP

hMP

hMP

hñ

hñ

hñ

hñ

hñ

hñ

hMP

hMP

hMP

hMP

hMP

hMP

hMP

hMP

萑ː搒Ũ葠ː摧偍

搒Ũ摧偍

ఀ05(b) of the RFA, and thereby did not conduct a full RFA analysis.
The commenter asserts they will have a very “significant economic
impact” under the Proposed rule.  They conclude that EPA’s proposed
rulemaking violates the RFA because EPA failed to adequately consider
and explain the effect that the rulemaking will have on small entities,
including the entities that compete in the narrow tube industry.  The
commenter states that a full RFA analysis of the effect of the
rulemaking on small entities, be conducted.

	Response:   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The EPA's economic impacts analysis
focused on businesses that own and operate small, medium and large-sized
solvent cleaning machines.  The impacts were small enough that a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) was not
warranted.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The final facility-wide emission limit was
selected based on the EPA's analysis of the potential emission
reduction, and the cost, economic, and other environmental impacts
associated with differing levels of control.  The EPA did not use the
cost-benefit analysis in selecting the MACT standard.

 EPA-HA-OAR-2002-0009-0100, Henderson, Timothy R., Rich and Henderson,
P.C., representing American Safety Razor Company

 64 FR 45187-45189.

 64 FR 67793 – 67803, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants:  Halogenated Solvent Cleaning – Final rule; amendments,
December 3, 1999

 63 FR 68397 & 68398, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants:  Halogenated Solvent Cleaning – Final rule; compliance
extension, December 11, 1998.

 Memorandum from Chris Sarsony, E2M, to Lynn Dail, EPA, July 3, 2006.

 .  see page C-6 in Appendix C “Recommended Dose-Response Values for
HAPs”.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/data/risk/vol_1/appendix_c.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/data/risk/vol_1/appendix_c.pdf

 	“Health Effects Information Used In Cancer and Non-cancer Risk
Characterization For the 1999 National-Scale Assessment.”

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf

 Lewandowski and Rhomberg, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
[41:30-54, 2005], entitled A Proposed Methodology for Selecting a
Trichloroethylene Inhalation Unit Risk Value for Use in Risk Assessment.

 Risk Assessment for the Halogenated Solvent Cleaning Source Category,
US Environmental Protection Agency, August 4, 2006.

 For comparison purposes, we estimated that compliance with the
requirements of the National Perchloroethylene Air Emission Standards
for Dry Cleaning Facilities Final Rule (71 FR 42727, July 27, 2006),
would result in an annualized cost of about $7 million to achieve a
cancer incidence reduction of 2 cancer cases per year. This yields a
cost of $3.5 million per cancer case avoided based on the CalEPA unit
risk estimate for PCE.

      The proposed rule reads:  “The vacuum-to-vacuum cleaning machine
capital costs were based on the replacement of a solvent cleaning
machine with a solvent-air interface of 2.5 m2, which is the average
size of the solvent cleaning machines for which we have size data.”
71 Fed.Reg. at 47682.

      Tiyoda-Serec Corporation has just completed installation of a
machine of approximately the size quoted to Plymouth Tube Company.
Unfortunately, according to Bill McCormick, president of Tiyoda-Serec
Corporation, that machine was not designed to cycle as quickly as
required by Plymouth Tube Company, it was not designed to use PCE, TCE
or MC, and it has been used only for tubes with inside diameters no
smaller than one-half inch in diameter.  In essence, any comparison is
inappropriate.

      This document was entered into the EPA Docket as “Pollution
Prevention Technology Profile: Closed Loop Vapor Degreasing”, with a
document ID of EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0009-0072.   It is also referred to as
the NEWMOA report elsewhere in these comments.

DRAFT-for EPA Internal Review

 PAGE

 PAGE  56

0154-03-002\Boiler MACT Recon - comment-response.doc

 PAGE

 PAGE   ii

 PAGE   2