3M 3M General Offices August 1, 2003 3M Center St. Paul, MN55 144 1000 12733 1110 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Document Control Office ( DCO) Office ofPollution Prevention and Toxics ( OPPT) US Environmental Protection Agency EPA East, Room 6428 1201 Constitution Avenue, MW WashingtonDC 20460 Dear Sir or Madam:

During the July 9, 2003 meeting ofthe Fluoropolymers Technical Workgroup there was a request for information on the physical/ chemical properties of PFOA. This information is attached. In addition, a summary ofenvironmental fate study results is included in the attachment to augment the understanding of environmental behavior ofthis substance.

This document should be considered an addition to the P Chem properties for fluoropolymers data request made in Item 2 on page 11 ofthe Preliminary Framework document published by EPA on May 20, 2003. A reference ofthis submittal should be placed in the Electronic Docket OPPT 2003 00 12.

Sincerely,

/~

.   ` cc: Mary Dominiak   Room 4410 Michael A. Santoro Director ofEnvironmental, Health Safety and Regulatory Affairs 3M/ Building 236 1B lO St. Paul, MN 55144 651 733 6374 ( phone) 651 733 1958 ( fax) George H. Millet Director  Quality, Environmental, Health & Safety Dyneon LLC, 3M Company 6744 33rd Street N. St. Paul, MN 55128 651 733 5637 ( office) 651 737 9637 ( fax)

Attachment PERFLUOROOCTANOIC ACID Physiochemical Properties1 and Environmental Fate Data PERFLUOROOCTANOIC ACID  PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES'

Chemical Identity Chemical Name: Perfluorooctanoic Acid Molecular formula: C8 H F15 02 Structural fonnula: F CF2 CF2 CF2 CF2 CF2 CF2 CF2 C(= O) X, The free acid and some common derivatives have the following CAS numbers: The perfluorooctanoate anion does not have a specific CAS number. Free Acid ( X = OM+; M = H) [ 335 67 1] Ammoniurn Salt ( X = OM+; M= NB4) [ 3825 26 1] Sodium Salt ( X = OM+; M = Na) [ 335 95 5] Potassium Salt ( X = OM+; M = K) [ 2395 00 8] Silver Salt ( X = OM ± ; M = Ag) [ 335 93 3] Acid Fluoride ( X = F) [ 335 66 0] Methyl Ester ( X = CH3) [ 376 27 2] Ethyl Ester ( X = CH2 CH3) [ 3108 24 5] Synonyms: 1 Octanoic acid, 2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8 pentadecafluoro PFOA Ammonium perfluorooctanoate ( APFO) is the Fluorinated Polymerization Aid ( FPA) most commonly used in the production ofmany fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers. APFO has several synonyms including C 8 acid, FC 143, and perfluoro ammonium octanoate. Thefree acid, perfluorooctanoic acid, is often calledPFOA. A more complete description ofphysical and other propertiesofthis and other( FPA) s may be found in Fluorinated Surfactants2.

Thermal Behavior Perfluorooctanoic acid has a fairly low melt point of45   50 ° C, with slight sublimation reported to occur at40 ° C ~. The reported vapor pressure ofPFOA, 10 mm Hg, appears high for a low melting solid when compared to other low melting solids ( chloroacetic acid: solid; MP 61 to 63 IC; BP = 189 IC; VP 0.1 kFa ( 0.75 mm Hg) @ 20 IC; NIOSH), but is consistent with other perfluorinated compounds with similar boiling points ( perfluorobutanoic acid BP = 120 IC, VP 10 mm Hg @ 20 IC) ~. The vapor pressure was measured at an elevated temperature ( inadvertently omitted from the report). Perfluorooctanoic acid is typically handled as a liquid at 65 / C ~.

While it maybe expected that conversion ofthePFOA acid toa salt should reduce its volatility, animonium perfluorooctanoate, the most commonly used salt ofPFOA, shows volatility at fairly low temperatures. The vapor pressure ofammoniumperfluorooctanoate ( APFO) was reported to be approximately 7 X 10~ mm Hg at 20 ° C. 6 A study ofweight loss behavior by thermogravimetric analysis ofvarious salts ofperfluoroi ctanoic acid illustrates the differences hi thermal behavior `~. For example, the ammonium saltbegan to show loss of sample weight in the 50 100 ° Crange ( 20% loss under the conditions used at 167 ° C), while the sodium salt did not show weight loss until about the 200 250 ° Crange ( 20% weight loss at 298 ° C). The ammonium salt begins to sublimate at 13 0 ° Cwith 20% of the weight ofthe sample t lost by 169 ° C. Other salts ( Cs, K, Ag, Pb, Li) do not demonstrate similar weight loss until 23 7 ° Corhigher. 8 Decomposition ofdifferent salts produces perfluoroheptene ( loss ofmetal fluoride and carbon dioxide). This occurs at 320 ° Cfor the sodium salt and at 25 0 290 / C for the silver salt ~.

Behavior in Water As expected, the solubility ofperfluorooctanoic acid and other salts is complex and can involve the formation ofmicellar solutions and liquid crystal phases. Phase diagrams havebeenpublished for ammonium perfluorooctanoate. 8 The free acid of PFOA is expected to completely dissociate in water. In aqueous solutions, individual molecules ofPFOA anion loosely associate on the water surface and partition between the air / water interface. Several reports note that PFOA salts self associate at the surface, but with agitation they disperse and micelles form at higher concentrations9, 10 & hI° Water solubility has been reported for PFOA, but it is unclear whether these values are for a microdispersion ofmicelles, rather than true solubility.

Due to these same surface active properties ofPFOA, and the test protocol for the OECD shake flask method, PFOA is anticipated to form multiple layers in octanol/ water Therefore, an n octanol/ water partition coefficient cannot be determined.

The PFOA derivative having the greatest use is the ammonium salt ( APFO; CAS No. 3 825 26 1). The water solubility ofAPFO has been inconsistently reported. One 3M study reported the water solubility ofAPFO to be> 10%. It was noted in an earlier study that at concentrations of20 gIL, the solution " gelled" ( 3M, 1979). This latter result seems surprising low for a salt in light ofApollo Scientific selling a 31% aqueous solution ofAPFO. One author reported the APFO partition coefficient log P~, 5. Another author reported an estimated APFO log P~=  0.9. This value might not be accurate due to the estimation method used 12 Again, the anticipated formation of an emulsified layer betweenthe octanol and water surface interface would make determination of log K0~ impossible.

Physicochemical Properties The available physicochemical properties for the PFOA free acid are: Molecular weight: 414~ Melting point: 45   50 IC~ Boiling point: 189   192 / C / 736 mm Hg5 Vapor pressure: 10 mm Hg@ 25 / C ( approx.) ( Exfluor MSDS) Water solubility: 3.4 g/ L ( telomeric [ MP 34 / C ref. 0.01  0.02 mol/ L ~ 4  8 g/ L) ( MSDS from Merck, Fischer, and Chinameilan Internet sites) pKa: 2.5 ( USEPA AR226 0473) pH ( lg/ L): 2.6 ( MSDS Merck)

Methanol solubility: > 10% by weight ( 3M Study 2001) Acetone solubility: > 10% by weight ( 3M Study 2001)

The physicocheinical properties ofPFOA and its common derivatives are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Reported Physicochemical Properties Compound ~ CAS REG# MP BP VP SoL 1120 Log ~*

R C(= O) Cl 335 64 8 13 1 ° C R CO2H 335 67 1 55 ° C 189 ° C lOmmHg 3.4g/ L R CO2 NF{ 4+ 3 825 26 1 130 ° C( sub) Sublirnes 1 x 1OE

mmHg 20 g/ L gels R C( 0) OMe 376 27 2 159 ° C pH ( I g free acid/ L water) = 1.5   2.5 Free acid pKa is approximately 0.6 Sodium or Silver salts of PFOA decompose above 250 ° Cto generate perfluoroolefins. Surfactants traditionally emulsif~, ioctanol and water The environmental fate study results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. PFOA Environmental Fate Data Product Cation % PFOA product Parameter Resu'ts .

Comments Year Tested FC 143 NH4 Soil Sorption ( Brill sandy loam soil) K = 0.21, Koc = 14 Highly mobile; 3M Study 1978 FC 143 NH4 97 100 30 day photolysis ~ xposure No evidence of degradation 3M Study 1979 FC 143 NH4 °

95.2 Direct and indirect photolysis Minimum indirect photolysis 1/ 2 life dt 25 ° C= > 349 days No evidence of direct or indirect oss of PFOA was observed; 3M Study 2001 FC 143 NH4 95.2 Hydrolysis at pH 1 .5, 5.0, 7.0, 9.0 hydrolytic 1/ 2 life at 25 ° C= > 97 days FFOA loss was pH independent; 3M Study 2001 FC 143 NH4 97 100 og Kow  0.9 Calculated; 3M Study 1981 FC 143 NH4 97 100 .

BCF  fathead minnow 1.8 PFOA conc. was calculated from otal F conc. After15 days dupuration, fish tissue conc lropped from 47 ppm to 8 ppm ( wet weight); 3M Study 1995 FC 143 NH4 97 100 Biodegradation ( ABS/ LAS shake culture) No evidence of biodegradation 2.5 month exposure. Inoculum mixture of municipal and 3M industrial activated sludge. 3M Study 1978 : C.. 143 NH4 97 100 Ready biodegradability ° CBOD 20/ COD Nil ~ 3MStudy 1980 FX 1 001 H 95 98 Ready biodegradability  CBOD ~ 0/ COD Nil `~ MStudy 1985 Table 2. PFOA Environmental Fate Data ( cont.)

Product Cation % PFOA in product Parameter I Year Results Comments Tested FC 126 NH4 78 93 Ready biodegradability  CBOD 20/ COD 0.86 3M Study 1987 .

FC 143 NH4 95.2 18 Day aerobic biodegradability Nith measured conc. No evidence of biodegradation 3M Study 2001 Information taken from the Guide to the Safe Handling ofFluoropolyiner Dispersions, Fluoropolymers Manufactures Group, Society of Plastics Industry, Washington DC, October 2001, and the Preliminary RiskAssessment ofthe Developmental Toxicity Associated with Exposure to Peifluorooctanoic Acid and its Sa14 US EPA, OPPT, Risk Assessment Office, April 10, 2003 2 Kissa, ErikFluorinated Surfactants; Marcel Dekker: New York, 1994 ~ Nakayama, HaruoBull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 1967, 40, 1592 95.

~` Beilstein ( 1975) Beilstein Handbook 4th Work Volume 2 Part 2 page 994 3M data sheet for FC 26 ~ Griffith, F. D. and Long, J. E. Am. md. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1980, 41, 576 83.

~ Lines, D. and Sutcliffe, H. I Fluorine Chem. 1984, 25( 4), 505 12.

8 Tiddy, G. J. T. I. ~ 2hem. Soc., Faraday Trans. I 1972, 68, 608 12.

~ Siniister, EA; Lee, EM; Lu, JR; Thomas, RK; Ottewill, RH; Rennie, AR; Penfold, J. ( 1992). Adsorption of ammoniurn perfluoroocanoate and ammonium decanoate at the air solution interface. J Chem Soc, Faraday Trans 88( 20): 3033 41.

10 Calfours, J; Stubs, P. ( 1985) Solubilization in sodium perfluorooctanoate micelles:

a multicomponent self diffusion study. Colloid Interface Sci 103 : 332 336.

~ Edwards, PJB; Jolley, KW; Smith, MH; et al. ( 1997) Solvent isotope effect on the self assembly liquid crystalline phase behavior in aqueous solutions of ammonium pentadecafluorooctanoate. Langmuir 13( 10): 2665 2669.

12 Hansch, C; Leo, A; Eds. ( 1979) The fragment method of calculated partition coefficients. In:

Substituent Constants for Correlation Analysis and Chemistry and Biology, Chapter IV. JohnWiley and Sons, Inc.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45349-45350]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-2301-000]

Stream Energy New York, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Stream Energy New York, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is August 14, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the

eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 25, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18612 Filed 7-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 24, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 204)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61417-61422]
[DOCID:fr24oc05-23]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2003-0161, FRL-7987-6]
RIN 2060-AK23

National Emission Standards for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing
Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed action; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: On December 15, 1994, we promulgated national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from magnetic tape
manufacturing operations (59 FR 64580). The national emission standards
limit and control HAP that are known or suspected to cause cancer or
have other serious health or environmental effect.
    Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to assess
the risk remaining (residual risk) after the application of national
emission standards controls and to promulgate more stringent standards,
if necessary, to protect public health with an ample margin of safety
and to prevent adverse environmental effect. Also, section 112(d)(6) of
the CAA requires EPA to review and revise the national emission
standards, as necessary, taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies. Based on our findings from the
residual risk and technology review, we are proposing no further action
at this time to revise the national emission standards. Today's
proposed action requests public comments on the residual risk and
technology review for the national emission standards.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 8,
2005.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by November 14, 2005, a public hearing will be held
approximately 30 days following publication of this notice in the
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0161, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edkpub/index.jsp.

EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's
preferred method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> and<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center (6102T), Attention Docket Number OAR-2003-0161, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of
two copies.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID Number OAR-2003-
0161, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-108, Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.
    We request that you also send a separate copy of each comment to
the contact person for the proposed action listed below (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0161.
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.epa.gov/edkpub/index.jsp
, 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 EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as
CBI only to the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document
Control Officer, U.S. EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0161, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. The EPA EDOCKET and the
Federal regulations.gov Web sites are ``anonymous access'' systems,
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 EDOCKET or
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. For
additional information about EPA's public docket visit EDOCKET on-line
or see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102).
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.epa.gov/edkpub/index.jsp. Although listed in the index,

some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID Number OAR-
2003-0161, EPA West Building, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the proposed
action, contact Mr. H. Lynn Dail, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Coatings and Consumer
Products Group (C539-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions on the residual risk
analysis, contact Ms. Maria Pimentel, EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Risk and Exposure
Assessment Group (C404-01),

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. The regulated categories
and entities affected by the national emission standards include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Examples of regulated
               Category                               NAICS a code                            entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.............................  334613, 322222, 325992....................  Operations at major sources
                                                                                that are engaged in the
                                                                                surface coating of magnetic
                                                                                tape.
Federal Government...................  ..........................................  Not affected.
State, local, tribal government......  ..........................................  Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the
magnetic tape national emission standards. To determine whether your
facility would be affected by the magnetic tape national emission
standards, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part
63.701(a) of subpart EE (national emission standards for magnetic tape
manufacturing operations). If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of the magnetic tape national emission standards to a
particular entity, contact Mr. Lynn Dail, listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposed action will also be available on
the Worldwide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of the proposed action will be posted on
the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated
rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN

provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
    Related Information. We have prepared two summary documents
covering the development of, and the rationale for, this proposal and
the residual risk analysis. These reports are entitled: ``Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions from Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations--
Background Information for Technology and Residual Risk Review'' and
``Residual Risk Assessment for the Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Source
Category.'' Both documents are available in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0161. See the ``Docket'' section above for docket information.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10
a.m. and will be held at EPA's campus in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons interested in
presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing
is to be held should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer
Products Group, Emission Standards Division, EPA (C539-03), Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What did the magnetic tape national emission standards
accomplish?
    C. What are the conclusions of the residual risk assessment?
    D. What are the conclusions of the technology review?
II. Proposed Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage
regulatory process to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources.
In the first stage, after EPA has identified categories of sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in the CAA, section 112(d) calls
for us to promulgate national technology-based emission standards for
sources within those categories that emit or have the potential to emit
any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination
of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year (known as major sources),
as well as for certain area sources emitting less than those amounts.
These technology-based standards must reflect the maximum reductions of
HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-
air health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.
    For area sources, CAA Section 112(d)(5) provides that in lieu of
MACT, the Administrator may elect to promulgate standards or
requirements which provide for the use of generally available control
technologies or management practices and such standards are commonly
referred to as generally available control technology (GACT) standards.
    EPA is then required to review these technology-based standards and
to revise them ``as necessary, taking into account developments in
practices, processes and control technologies,'' no less frequently
than every 8 years.
    The second stage in standard-setting is described in section 112(f)
of the CAA. This provision requires, first, that EPA prepare a Report
to Congress discussing (among other things) methods of calculating risk
posed (or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the
MACT standards, the public health significance of those risks, the
means and costs of controlling them, actual health effects to persons
in proximity to emitting sources, and recommendations as to legislation
regarding such remaining risk. The EPA prepared and submitted this
report (``Residual Risk Report to Congress,'' EPA-453/R-99-001) in
March 1999. The Congress did not act on any of the recommendations in
the report, triggering the second stage of the standard-setting
process, the residual risk phase.
    Section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine for each section 112(d)
source category whether the MACT standards protect public health with
an ample margin of safety. If the MACT standards for HAP ``classified
as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen do not reduce
lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to

emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to less than one
in one million,'' EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the
source category (or subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample
margin of safety. EPA must also adopt more stringent standards to
prevent an adverse environmental effect (defined in section 112(a)(7)
as ``any significant and widespread adverse effect * * * to wildlife,
aquatic life, or natural resources * * *.''), but must consider cost,
energy, safety, and other relevant factors in doing so.

B. What did the magnetic tape national emission standards accomplish?

    On December 15, 1994, we promulgated the national emission
standards for magnetic tape manufacturing operations (59 FR 64580) and
required existing sources to comply with the national emission
standards by December 15, 1996.
    The Magnetic Tape national emission standards cover HAP emissions
from surface coatings used in the manufacture of magnetic and optical
recording media used in audio, video, computer and magnetic stripe tape
and disks. The emission units regulated by the Magnetic Tape national
emission standards are storage tanks, mix preparation equipment,
coating operations, waste handling devices, condenser vents in solvent
recovery, particulate transfer operations, wash sinks for cleaning
removable parts, equipment for flushing fixed lines, and wastewater
treatment operations. The Magnetic Tape national emission standards
regulates only those sources located at major sources. During the
development of the national emission standards, we identified 25
existing magnetic recording media and magnetic stripe facilities, of
which 14 were considered major and, therefore, subject to the national
emission standards. Currently, there are only six magnetic tape
manufacturing facilities remaining in the United States, all of which
are major.
    In general, the current national emission standards require an
overall HAP control efficiency of at least 95 percent for emissions
from each solvent storage tank, piece of mix preparation equipment,
coating operation, waste handling device, or condenser vent in solvent
recovery. If an incinerator is used to control these emissions points,
an outlet HAP concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by
volume by compound may be met, instead of achieving 95 percent control,
as long as the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent. If a
coating with a HAP content no greater than 0.18 kilograms per liter
(1.5 pounds per gallon) of coatings solids is used, that coating
operation does not require further control.
    Several solvent and particulate HAP are used in the magnetic tape
manufacturing industry. Currently, the HAP solvents used to the
greatest extent are methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and toluene, and the
particulate HAP are cobalt and cobalt compounds, used at one facility.
One individual facility uses 0.4 pound per year (lb/yr) of
acrylonitrile and another facility uses 7 lbs/yr of lead. At the time
of promulgation of the national emission standards, however, the
solvent HAP in use included MEK, toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone,
toluene diisocyanate, ethylene glycol, methanol, xylenes, ethyl
benzene, and acetaldehyde; and the particulate HAP included chromium,
cobalt, and their respective compounds. Several of these HAP are no
longer used in the industry. The HAP, MEK and toluene, are used at all
facilities; however, HAP such as n-hexane, methanol, methyl isobutyl
ketone, xylenes, triethylamine, phenol, styrene, hydrogen cloride,
ethyl acrylate and ethyl benzene are selectively used at individual
facilities according to their coating formulation. At the time of
promulgation of the Magnetic Tape national emission standards, we
estimated that these HAP emissions, including MEK and toluene, would be
reduced by 2,080 Mg/yr (2,300 tpy) from a baseline of 4,060 Mg/yr
(4,470 tpy).

C. What are the conclusions of the residual risk assessment?

Source Category Characterization
    As required by section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, we prepared a risk
assessment to determine the residual risk posed by magnetic tape
manufacturing operations after implementation of the national emission
standards. We compiled a list of the six magnetic tape manufacturing
facilities still in operation in the United States based on inventory
information we gathered from a number of manufacturing facilities and
State environmental program offices (e.g., whether these facilities
were still operating and manufacturing magnetic tape).
Emissions Data
    The major HAP emitted by the magnetic tape manufacturing source
category are MEK and toluene, which comprise 97 percent of all
emissions in the source category. Other HAP such as n-hexane, methanol,
methyl isobutyl ketone, xylenes, triethylamine, phenol, styrene,
hydrogen chloride, ethyl acrylate, and ethyl benzene are used at
individual facilities in very small amounts. The six magnetic tape
manufacturing facilities have HAP emissions ranging from 3.9 to 214 Mg/
yr (4.3 to 236 tpy). The total annual HAP emissions, nationally, are
estimated to be 468 Mg/yr (516 tpy).
    The primary sources of emissions and parameter data for the
residual risk assessment were the 1999 National Emissions Inventory,
2000 Toxics Release Inventory, State offices, and the facilities
involved. The emissions and parameter data used for the residual risk
assessment have been placed in the docket. Using these data, we modeled
exposure concentrations surrounding the six facilities, calculated the
risk of possible chronic cancer and noncancer health effects, evaluated
whether acute exposures might exceed relevant health thresholds, and
investigated human health multipathway and ecological risks.
    While the emissions data used in the residual risk assessment
represent actual levels of emissions for the base year, we believe
these levels are not substantially different from the maximum emission
levels allowed under the current national emission standards.
Therefore, the results of the risk assessment represent our
approximation of the maximum risks which would be allowed under
compliance with the national emission standards.
Results
    Consistent with the tiered modeling approach described in the
Residual Risk Report to Congress, the risk assessment for this source
category started with a simple assessment which used conservative
assumptions in lieu of site-specific data. The results demonstrated
negligible risks for potential chronic cancer, chronic noncancer, and
acute noncancer health endpoints. Also, no significant human health
multipathway or ecological risks were identified. Had the resulting
risks been determined to be non-negligible, a more refined analysis
with site-specific data would have been necessary. The assessment is
described in detail in the memorandum ``Residual Risk Assessment for
the Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Source Category'' and the addendum
memorandum, available in the docket. The assessment was peer reviewed
by EPA scientists and revised, and the peer review comments have also
been placed in the docket. Brief summaries of the results follow.
    Cancer. One of the six facilities within the magnetic tape
manufacturing source category was quantitatively

assessed for potential cancer risks due to the acrylonitrile emissions
from the facility. Acrylonitrile is classified as a probable human
carcinogen by EPA. The other five facilities did not emit any amount of
known, probable, or possible carcinogens. The estimated maximum
lifetime (i.e., 70-year) individual cancer risk associated with the
facility was 1-in-100 million, or 0.01-in-a million. This is
significantly less than the statutory trigger of 1-in-a million in
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA.
    Chronic noncancer. The maximum chronic noncancer hazard indices
(HI) were calculated for the emissions of all the noncarcinogens with
published health threshold values for all six of the existing
facilities. The maximum target organ-specific HI calculated for any of
the facilities was 0.3, the major portion of the risk stemming from
predicted exposures to cobalt. Cobalt is a respiratory toxicant when
inhaled, but the chronic inhalation of air concentrations below 0.1
microgram per cubic meter ([mu]g/m3) is considered to be
without risk of adverse health effects, as stated in the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's Toxicological Profile. Since
all noncancer exposures were well below a target organ-specific HI of
1, we do not believe that chronic exposures from these facilities pose
a public health concern.
    Acute. All maximum predicted 1-hour exposure concentrations for the
pollutants emitted by the six magnetic tape manufacturing facilities
were below all appropriate acute dose-response values. Therefore, we do
not believe that acute exposures from these facilities pose any
potential for a public health concern.
    Human health multipathway and ecological. Some persistent and
bioaccumulative (PB) HAP may pose human health risks via exposure
pathways other than inhalation and can also pose ecological risks by
entering the wildlife food chain. Based on emissions data obtained for
the magnetic tape manufacturing source category, lead is the only PB
HAP reported as emitted by magnetic tape sources. Lead is a
neurotoxicant when ingested or inhaled above acceptable concentration
levels. Therefore, we investigated lead for potential human health
impact via noninhalation pathways (e.g., ingestion).
    Lead was reported as emitted by one of the six facilities in the
magnetic tape manufacturing source category. Although lead is not
typically emitted from magnetic tape manufacturing processes, we
nonetheless included those emissions in our analysis in an attempt to
capture the worst-case impact for the facility.
    The maximum annual average air concentration of lead associated
with this facility was estimated at 0.00032 [mu]g/m3. The
maximum soil concentration of lead due to deposition over a 30-year
time period at a census block centroid was estimated at 4.6 milligrams
per gram. All of the predicted blood lead levels associated with the
one facility were estimated at concentrations ranging from 2.5 to 4.2
micrograms per deciliter ([mu]g/dL) for the various age groups
evaluated. The reference value which represents a level of concern for
children as specified by EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention is 10 [mu]g/dL. Thus, no significant human health
multipathway risks are expected.
    We also consider the potential for adverse environmental effect as
part of the assessment. Regarding the inhalation exposure to pathway
for terrestrial mammals, we conclude that human toxicity values for the
inhalation pathway are generally protective of terrestrial mammals.
Therefore, because the maximum predicted cancer risks and noncancer
hazards to humans from inhalation exposure are extremely low, we expect
there to be no significant or widespread adverse effect to terrestrial
mammals from inhalation exposure to HAP emitted from facilities in this
source category. Further, to ensure that the potential for adverse
effect to wildlife (including birds) resulting from noninhalation
exposure is low, we carried out a screening-level multipathway
assessment of the potential for adverse ecological effect due to the
deposition of lead. The predicted soil lead concentrations from the one
facility that emits lead are low compared to the screening value for
lead in soil; therefore, we do not expect any unacceptable risks to
ecological receptors. Since our results showed no screening-level
ecological effect, we do not believe that there is any potential for an
adverse effect on threatened or endangered species or on their critical
habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR 402.14(a). Because of these
results, EPA concluded that a consultation with the Fish and Wildlife
Service is not necessary.
Assessment Conclusions
    Since our assessment shows that the Magnetic Tape national emission
standards pose maximum lifetime excess cancer significantly less than
1-in-1 million, and since noncancer health risks and ecological risks
were found to be insignificant for this source category, EPA is not
obligated to adopt standards under section 112(f) of the CAA.
    EPA recognizes that there may be circumstances where it would be
appropriate to delist a source category even after MACT standards has
been implemented. For example, an industry may have changed
sufficiently in the years since the category was listed and the MACT
standards issued, such that even in the absence of the MACT standards,
emissions from the category would be sufficiently low to meet the
criteria of section 112(c)(9). However, in the present case we have not
developed data to support such an approach. We request comment on this
approach. We also request comment (with supporting data) on whether
this industry has changed such that it would be appropriate to delist
the source category or a distinct subcategory.

D. What are the conclusions of the technology review?

    Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise, as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies), emission standards promulgated under section
112 no less often than every 8 years. We reviewed available information
about the industry, talked with industry representatives, and contacted
several facilities in the industry to investigate available emission
control technologies and the potential for additional emission
reductions. We did not identify any additional control technologies
beyond those that are already in widespread use within the source
category (e.g., carbon adsorbers, condensers). The only developments
identified involve improvements in the performance of existing
technologies or increased frequency of inspections and testing, which
would achieve only small incremental emission reductions, as indicated
in the previous section. The only major technical advances we
discovered were the development of two new technologies (optical
recording media and solid state recording (SSR) media), which may
eventually supplant magnetic tape. However, optical recording media and
SSR media are not considered magnetic tape and would not be covered
under the Magnetic Tape national emission standards. These new
technologies, along with industry consolidation and competition from
foreign producers, which have lower production costs (primarily labor
costs) than domestic producers, have been identified as the primary
reasons for the overall decline of this industry sector. Therefore, our
investigation did not identify any significant developments in

practices, processes, or control technologies in the magnetic tape
manufacturing industry since promulgation of the original standards in
1994.
    In light of today's low-risk finding under section 112(f) (i.e.,
that, given compliance with the existing MACT standards, every source
in the category poses excess lifetime individual cancer risks less than
1-in-a-million and no significant noncancer or ecological risks), the
Agency seeks comment on the notion that, barring any unforeseeable
circumstances which might substantially change this source category or
its emissions, we would have no obligations to conduct future
technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6).

II. Proposed Action

    Because the existing national emission standards continues to
represent the best controls that can be implemented nationally, we
believe that no further revisions to the standards are needed under
section 112(d)(6) of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted this action
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any information collection burden. It
will not change the burden estimates from those previously developed
and approved for the existing national emission standards. However, OMB
has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulation (59 FR 64580, December 15, 1994)
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq., and have assigned OMB control number 2060-0326, ICR No. 1678.05.
A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be
obtained from Susan Auby, by mail at the Office of Environmental
Information, Collection Strategies Division, EPA (2822T), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Burden means 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. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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 today's proposed action on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose
parent company has fewer than 500 to 1,000 employees, depending on the
size definition for the affected NAICS code (as defined by Small
Business Administration size standards); (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.
    After considering the economic impact of today's proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. We are
proposing no further action at this time to revise the national
emission standards. Today's proposed action requests public comments on
the residual risk and technology review.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impact of the
proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impact.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effect of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the proposed action does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector in any 1 year. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on
State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus,
today's proposed action is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that the
proposed action contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, because it contains
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations
upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Today's proposed action does not have federalism implications. It
will not have substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed action
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' The proposed action does not
have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will
not have substantial direct effect on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to today's proposed action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866 and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effect of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
    The proposed action is not subject to the Executive Order because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because EPA does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Today's proposed decision is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because
it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that today's
proposed decision is not likely to have any adverse energy impacts.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, sec. 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
    The proposed action does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS. The EPA welcomes
comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically,
invites the public to identify potentially applicable VCS and to
explain why such standards should be used in the proposed action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 18, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-21186 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28131-28134]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10795]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0322]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 27 individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition against persons with a clinical
diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a
loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions
would enable these

individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication to operate CMVs for up to 2 years in interstate
commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0322 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov as described in
the system records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for up to 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 statutes
allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
The 27 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption
from the epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), which applies to
drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the
Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine
whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of
safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person

    Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.

    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria to assist medical examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. The advisory criteria found in Appendix A to 49
CFR 391.41, states that

    If an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic
seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not
require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's
condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of
ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by
the medical examiner in consultation with the treating physician.
Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a 6-month
waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the
waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete
neurological examination. If the results of the examination are
negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the
driver may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has recovered fully from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication.
    Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-
seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified
to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a
history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a
CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure
medication for a 5-year period or more.

    As a result of medical examiners misinterpreting advisory criteria
as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a
CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or
more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an
individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified medical
examiner based on the physical qualification standards and medical best
practices.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Hamilton Barnard

    Mr. Barnard is a 38 year-old driver in California. He has a history
of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2005. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since that time. His physician states that he is supportive of
Mr. Barnard receiving an exemption.

William E. Beaver

    Mr. Beaver is a 50 year-old class A CDL holder in Minnesota. He has
a history of a single seizure in January 2015, likely secondary to
cyclosporine use and posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome. He
discontinued taking anti-seizure in May 2015. His physician states that
he is supportive of Mr. Beaver receiving an exemption.

Paul V. Carlson

    Mr. Carlson is a 38 year-old driver in Minnesota. He has a history
of a single seizure following brain surgery for treatment of an
obstructive hydrocephalus ventricular colloid cyst in 2015. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since that time. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Carlson receiving an exemption.

Edward J. Carder Jr.

    Mr. Carder is a 37 year-old driver in Ohio. He has a history of a
single seizure in 2010. He takes anti-seizure medication with the
dosage and

frequency remaining the same since that time. His physician states that
he is supportive of Mr. Carder receiving an exemption.

Timothy M. Crampton

    Mr. Crampton is a 24 year-old driver in Connecticut. He has a
history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2002. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since that time. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Crampton receiving an exemption.

Henry Dennis Counts Jr.

    Mr. Counts is a 39 year-old driver in Maryland. He has a history of
a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2003. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 2006. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Counts receiving an exemption.

Tommy Joe Cox

    Mr. Cox is a 53 year-old class B CDL holder in Kentucky. He has a
history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2014. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since that time. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Cox receiving an exemption.

Michael D. Davis

    Mr. Davis is a 47 year-old class A CDL holder in Maine. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1998.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since 2002. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Davis receiving an exemption.

William Garvin

    Mr. Garvin is a 38 year-old driver in New Hampshire. He has a
history of a seizure in 2015. He takes anti-seizure medication with the
dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. His physician
states that she is supportive of Mr. Garvin receiving an exemption.

Charlie E. Getchell

    Mr. Getchell is a 57 year-old class B CDL holder in Wisconsin. He
has a history of a single seizure and has remained seizure free since
1986. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Getchell receiving an exemption.

Dennis R. Giles

    Mr. Giles is a 56 year-old class B CDL holder in Indiana. He has a
history of a single seizure in 2010 and has remained seizure free since
that time. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since that time. His physician states that
he is supportive of Mr. Giles receiving an exemption.

Jeremiah Gonzales

    Mr. Gonzales is a 34 year-old class A CDL holder in Colorado. He
has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since
2009. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since 2013. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Gonzales receiving an exemption.

Robert W. Goddard

    Mr. Goddard is a 53 year-old class B CDL holder in New Hampshire.
He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free
since 2006. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since 2013. His physician states that he
is supportive of Mr. Goddard receiving an exemption.

Roderick L. Haslip

    Mr. Haslip is a 54 year-old class A CDL holder in New York. He has
a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since
2010. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Haslip receiving an exemption.

Larry G. Hediger

    Mr. Hediger is a 59 year-old class A CDL holder in Illinois. He has
a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2004. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 2006. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Hediger receiving an exemption.

Martin Lancaster

    Mr. Lancaster is a 51 year-old driver in Maine. He has a history of
a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2001. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since that time. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Lancaster receiving an exemption.

Philip A. Logan

    Mr. Logan is a 35 year-old driver in South Carolina. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1998.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Logan receiving an exemption.

Eric J. McVetty

    Mr. McVetty is a 29 year-old class B CDL holder in New Hampshire.
He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free
since 2005. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since that time. His physician states that
he is supportive of Mr. McVetty receiving an exemption.

Doug William Outfleet

    Mr. Outfleet is a 55 year-old driver in California. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2010.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since that time. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Outfleet receiving an exemption.

David J. Parris

    Mr. Parris is a 22 year-old driver in Illinois. He has a history of
a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2012. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since that time. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Parris receiving an exemption.

Donald John Richmond

    Mr. Richmond is a 63 year-old driver in South Carolina. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1980.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since 2001. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Richmond receiving an exemption.

Shawn E. Sands

    Mr. Sands is a 32 year-old driver in Illinois. He has a history of
epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2009. He takes anti-
seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same
since that time. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Sands receiving an exemption.

Robert B.Skinner

    Mr. Skinner is a 43 year-old driver in Ohio. He has a history of a
brain tumor and has remained seizure free since 2007. He takes anti-
seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same
since that time. His

physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Skinner receiving an
exemption.

Shaen Smith

    Mr. Smith is a 47 year-old driver in Minnesota. He has a history of
epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 1998. He takes anti-
seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same
since 2013. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Smith
receiving an exemption.

Kevin Lee Sprinkle

    Mr. Sprinkle is a 35 year-old class A CDL holder in North Carolina.
He has a history of juvenile epilepsy and has remained seizure free
since 2005. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since that time. His physician states that
he is supportive of Mr. Sprinkle receiving an exemption.

Patrick Trimbo

    Mr. Trimbo is a 53 year-old class A CDL holder in Minnesota. He has
a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since
1996. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since 2008. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Trimbo receiving an exemption.

Alan Washabaugh

    Mr. Washabaugh is a 57 year-old class A CDL holder in Pennsylvania.
He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free
since 1996. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since that time. His physician states that
he is supportive of Mr. Washabaugh receiving an exemption.

III. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.

IV. Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket number ``FMCSA-2015-0322'' and
click the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue
``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new
page, enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and materials received during the comment period.
FMCSA may issue a final determination any time after the close of the
comment period.

V. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert
the docket number FMCSA-2015-0322 and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments
related to this notice.

    Issued on: April 29, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-10795 Filed 5-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


MEMORANDUM

FROM: Steven Silverman, Attorney OGC

TO:  Portland Cement NESHAP Clarification notice Docket

RE:  Conversation with Jim Pew, Esq.

On the afternoon of October 21, Keith Barnett and I called Jim pew,
counsel to EarthJustice and main author of their comments during the
rulemaking, to give him advance notice of four clarifying changes we are
contemplating for the portland cement NESHAP rule language.  These are:
restoring the pre-2009 standards during the period before compliance
with the newly adopted standards, adding open clinker piles and opacity
to the list of standards with a November 2013 compliance date, fixing a
cross reference, and adding words dropped from a table in the rule.