[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 89344-89346]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28381]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-2483; Airspace Docket No. 23-AGL-24]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-48, V-52, V-216, and V-434,
and Revocation of VOR Federal Airway V-206 in the Vicinity of Ottumwa,
IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Very High Frequency
Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airways V-48, V-52, V-216, and V-
434, and revoke VOR Federal Airway V-206. The FAA is proposing this
action due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the
Ottumwa, IA (OTM), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME)
navigational aid (NAVAID). The Ottumwa VOR is being decommissioned in
support of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 12, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-2483 and
Airspace Docket No. 23-AGL-24 using any of the following methods:
    * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
    * Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    * Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    * Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the National Airspace System (NAS) as
necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or
commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments
are filed in writing.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light
of the comments it receives.
    Privacy: 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 www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and
hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during
normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group,
Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Incorporation by Reference

    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This
document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order
JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023.
These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO
7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

Background

    The FAA is planning to decommission the Ottumwa, IA, VOR in
September 2024. The Ottumwa VOR was one of the candidate VORs
identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed
in the final policy statement notice, ``Provision of Navigation
Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)
Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing
a VOR Minimum Operational Network),'' published in the Federal Register
on July 26, 2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082.
    Although the VOR portion of the Ottumwa, IA, VOR/DME is planned for
decommissioning, the co-located Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) will
be retained to support current and future Area Navigation (RNAV)
procedure requirements.
    The VOR Federal Airways affected by the Ottumwa VOR decommissioning
are V-48, V-52, V-206, V-216, and V-434. With the planned
decommissioning of the Ottumwa VOR, the remaining ground-based NAVAID
coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of the
affected airways. As such, proposed modifications to V-48, V-52, and V-
434 would result in the airways being shortened; to V-216 would result
in an existing gap in the airway being expanded; and to V-206 would
result in the airway being revoked.
    To address the proposed modifications to the affected VOR Federal
Airways, instrument flight rules (IFR) pilots may circumnavigate the
affected area by using adjacent VOR Federal Airways V-6, V-8, V-10, V-
67, and V-175 or request air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors
through the affected area. Additionally, IFR pilots operating aircraft
equipped with RNAV capabilities could navigate point-to-point using the
existing Fixes and waypoints (WP) that will remain in place to support
continued operations or use RNAV routes T-251 or T-397 though the
affected area. Visual flight rules pilots who elect to navigate via the
affected VOR Federal Airways may also take advantage of the ATC
services listed previously.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing to amend 14 CFR part 71 to amend VOR Federal
Airways V-48, V-52, V-216, and V-434, and revoke VOR Federal Airway V-
206. The FAA is proposing this action due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Ottumwa, IA,

VOR/DME. The proposed airway actions are described below.
    V-48: V-48 currently extends between the Ottumwa, IA, VOR/DME and
the Pontiac, IL, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment
between the Ottumwa VOR/DME and the Burlington, IA, VOR/DME. As
amended, the airway would be changed to extend between the Burlington
VOR/DME and the Pontiac VOR/DME.
    V-52: V-52 currently extends between the Des Moines, IA, VOR/
Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the Ottumwa, IA, VOR/DME; and
between the St. Louis, MO, VORTAC and the Pocket City, IN, VORTAC. The
FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the Des Moines VORTAC
and the Ottumwa VOR/DME. As amended, the airway would be changed to
extend between the St. Louis VORTAC and the Pocket City VORTAC.
    V-206: V-206 currently extends between the Napoleon, MO, VORTAC and
the Ottumwa, IA, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment
between the Kirksville, MO, VORTAC and the Ottumwa VOR/DME due to the
planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Ottumwa VOR/DME.
Additionally, the FAA proposes to also remove the airway segment
between the Napoleon VORTAC and the Kirksville VORTAC due to that
airway segment overlapping V-10 which will remain charted and provide
navigational guidance between the two NAVAIDs. As amended, the airway
would be revoked in its entirety.
    V-216: V-216 currently extends between the Lamar, CO, VOR/DME and
the Mankato, KS, VORTAC; and between the Lamoni, IA, VOR/DME and the
Janesville, WI, VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment
between the Lamoni VOR/DME and the Iowa City, IA, VOR/DME. As amended,
the airway would be changed to extend between the Lamar VOR/DME and the
Mankato VORTAC and between the Iowa City VOR/DME and the Janesville
VOR/DME.
    V-434: V-434 currently extends between the Ottumwa, IA, VOR/DME and
the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway
segment between the Ottumwa VOR/DME and the Moline, IL, VOR/DME. As
amended, the airway would be changed to extend between the Moline VOR/
DME and the Brickyard VORTAC.
    The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal Airway descriptions in
the proposed regulatory text of this NPRM are unchanged and stated in
degrees True north.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11,
2023, and effective September 15, 2023, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-48 [Amended]

    From Burlington, IA; Peoria, IL; to Pontiac, IL.
* * * * *

V-52 [Amended]

    From St Louis, MO; Troy, IL; INT Troy 099[deg] and Pocket City,
IN, 311[deg] radials; to Pocket City.
* * * * *

V-206 [Removed]

* * * * *

V-216 [Amended]

    From Lamar, CO; Hill City, KS; to Mankato, KS. From Iowa City,
IA; INT Iowa City 062[deg] and Janesville, WI, 240[deg] radials; to
Janesville.
* * * * *

V-434 [Amended]

    From Moline, IL; Peoria, IL; Champaign, IL; to Brickyard, IN.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 19, 2023.
Frank Lias,
Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2023-28381 Filed 12-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Even if a nonattainment area would have attained the
PM10 NAAQS but for international transport of emissions from
outside the U.S., section 179B still requires the area to meet the
statutory requirements for a nonattainment plan. Section 179B suspends
the obligation to provide an attainment demonstration showing actual
attainment of the NAAQS, but a nonattainment area still has to meet
basic requirements such as RACM/RACT, RFP and contingency measures. We
will discuss how the 2012 Nogales PM10 Plan addressed these
requirements in the following sections of this proposed rule.

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)/Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) and Adopted Control Strategy

1. Requirement for RACM/RACT
    CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that an attainment plan ``provide
for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions
from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the
adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology),
and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air
quality standards.'' EPA defines RACM as measures that a State finds
are both reasonably available and contribute to attainment as
expeditiously as practicable in its nonattainment area. See also the
General Preamble, 57 FR 13560; (April 16, 1992).
    The General Preamble also discusses the moderate area
PM10 requirements for RACM/RACT at section 189(a)(1)(C). As
a starting point, a State should review the list of available control
measures provided with the General Preamble and provide a reasoned
judgment for rejecting any of these available control measures. A State
may show that one or more control measures are unreasonable because
emissions from those sources are insignificant within the nonattainment
area; as such, those control measures would not be considered RACM for
the nonattainment area. Any remaining control measures from the General
Preamble list should then be evaluated for reasonableness according to
their technological feasibility and cost of control. See 57 FR 13540-
13541; (April 16, 1992).
    The 1994 General Preamble Addendum also discusses the requirements
for RACM as applied to nonattainment areas affected by international
transport. In international border areas, ``RACM/RACT must be
implemented to the extent necessary to demonstrate attainment by the
applicable attainment date if emissions emanating from outside the U.S.
were not included in the analysis.'' As set forth in section
179B(a)(2), a State's moderate area PM10 plan must be
``adequate'' to attain and maintain the PM10 NAAQS, but for
emissions from outside the U.S. Therefore, nothing in section 179B
relieves a State from the requirement to address and implement RACM.
Nonetheless, States are not required to implement control measures that
go beyond what the plan demonstrates would otherwise be adequate for
attainment and maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS but for
emissions from outside the U.S. See 59 FR 42001; (August 16, 1994). For
a nonattainment area making a showing under section 179B, the area is
required to implement RACM/RACT sufficient to attain the standard by
the applicable attainment date, but for emissions from outside the
U.S., and to maintain the level of emissions from U.S. sources
sufficient to provide for continued attainment of the NAAQS, but for
the emissions from outside the U.S.
2. RACM/RACT in the Nogales Nonattainment Area
    For the Nogales 2012 Plan, ADEQ reviewed the RACM/RACT
demonstration from the 1993 Nogales PM10 Plan in light of
the updated emissions inventories and section 179B demonstration and
concluded that no additional RACM beyond that already implemented is
required. In support of this conclusion, ADEQ describes the status of
implementation of the RACM adopted as part of the 1993 Nogales
PM10 Plan. Based on our review of both the 1993 plan and the
current 2012 plan, and for the reasons given below, we agree with
ADEQ's conclusion that no further RACM is required.
    First, we note that, based on the emissions inventories from the
1993 and 2012 plans, entrainment of PM10 by vehicle travel
over unpaved surfaces, primarily roads, remains the most significant
source of PM10 emissions generated within the Nogales NA,
and while PM10 emissions from this source are certainly
lower than they would have been without additional paving, they still
account for more than 50 percent of the overall PM10
inventory in the Nogales NA.
    In the late 1980s, ADEQ, Santa Cruz County, and the city of Nogales
recognized the importance of PM10 emissions from entrainment
by vehicle travel over unpaved surfaces. To reduce such emissions, the
city of Nogales undertook a program to pave the unpaved roads in the
city, paving an average of two miles of unpaved roads per year from
1989 through 1992,\56\ to chip-seal the city's equipment yard, and to
pave the unpaved parking areas of Memorial Park and Neighborhood
Center. Over this same period, within the unincorporated area of the
Nogales NA, Santa Cruz County undertook a program to chip-seal unpaved
county roads and chip-sealed approximately 2-3 miles of previously
unpaved roads per year.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ To put a rate of two miles of paving per year into context,
we note that, by 1993, there remained approximately 10 miles of
unpaved public roads within the city of Nogales.
    \57\ For perspective on the county's rate of paving/chip sealing
of unpaved roads, we note that as of 2011 there were approximately
40 to 50 miles of unpaved roads remaining in the unincorporated area
of the Nogales NA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the 1993 Nogales PM10 Plan, the city of Nogales
committed to paving the remainder of its unpaved streets by 1998, and
Santa Cruz County committed to chip-seal at least one mile of unpaved
road per year over 1993 and 1994 within the Nogales NA.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See 1993 Nogales PM10 Plan, pages 31 and 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1993 Nogales PM10 Plan also cited diesel-powered
truck idling at two ports of entry (DeConcini and Mariposa) along the
U.S. Mexico border in Nogales as a source of PM10 emissions
within the Nogales NA and identified the reduction of idling time by
such trucks as a RACM for implementation by the U.S. Customs Service.
In response, the U.S. Customs Service committed to complete certain

capital improvements, including the addition of four north-bound lanes
at the DeConcini Port of Entry (central business district within
Nogales) and three north-bound lanes at the Mariposa Port of Entry
(west of the central business district).
    Third, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the dragging of the
unpaved border road by the U.S. Border Patrol (to detect fresh
footprints) was considered another source of PM10 emissions
contributing to ambient PM10 concentrations in Nogales. The
1993 Nogales PM10 Plan does not identify RACM for this
source. However, the 1993 Nogales PM10 Plan notes that, in
1992, the U.S. Border Patrol discontinued the practice of dragging a
1.5-mile stretch of border road within the Nogales NA.\59\ The Border
Patrol discontinued the practice over this stretch of road because it
was ineffective. The road was also wired for movement sensors to detect
human movement. These changes reduced this source of PM10
emissions within the Nogales NA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See 1993 Nogales PM10 Plan, page 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By the end of 1994, which was the applicable attainment date for
the Nogales PM10 nonattainment area, the city of Nogales had
paved an additional four miles of unpaved roads (beyond that completed
through 1992); Santa Cruz County had paved an additional four miles of
South River Road; and the U.S. Customs Service had completed the
capital improvements described above at the DeConcini and Mariposa
Ports of Entry. Together, these measures, in addition to those
PM10-reducing measures completed in the late 1980s and early
1990s and certain other measures implemented outside of the SIP process
(i.e., the discontinuance of dragging the border road), were sufficient
to reduce PM10 concentrations in the Nogales NA such that
maximum 24-hour PM10 concentrations decreased from greater
than 200 [mu]g/m\3\ in the late 1980s to less than 120 [mu]g/m\3\ by
1994.
    Based on the data collected during the 1992-1994 period, EPA
determined that the Nogales area had attained the PM10
standard by the 1994 area's statutory attainment date. See 76 FR 1532;
(January 11, 2011). Thus, the measures implemented by the city of
Nogales, Santa Cruz County, and U.S. Customs Service provided for
attainment by the applicable attainment date and thereby met the RACM
requirement. The Nogales 2012 Plan did not include the RACM commitments
contained in the 1993 Nogales PM10 Plan but, given their
prior completion and permanent nature, we do not believe that the
commitments need be made a part of the SIP.
    EPA does recognize that violations of the PM10 standard
began to occur once again in Nogales beginning in 1998 and that such
violations continue to the present, but, based on the section 179B
demonstration contained in the 2012 Nogales Plan, and evaluated in
section IV.B herein, we do not believe that additional RACM are
required to be implemented within the Nogales NA because we believe
that the violations that have occurred since 1998 would not have
occurred but for emissions from Mexico.
    Our conclusion in this regard recognizes that PM10
emissions in various important PM10 source categories are
affected by changes in population, and whereas the population in the
Nogales NA increased by approximately 5,000 persons during the 20-year
period from 1990 to 2010, the population in Nogales, Mexico increased
by approximately 118,000 persons during that same period. Moreover, the
passage of the North American Fair Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 has
continued to fuel the already high level of industrial (Maquiladoras)
development on the Mexican side of the border. Most significantly,
however, we note ADEQ's detailed evaluation, as part of the section
179B demonstration, of the 29 exceedances measured during the 2007-2009
period and determination that the highest 24-hour PM10
concentration in Nogales, but for emissions from Mexico, was 107
[micro]g/m\3\, i.e., well below the 150 [micro]g/m\3\ standard.\60\
ADEQ's section 179B demonstration, which we are proposing to approve,
thus provides support for the conclusion that the violations that have
occurred since 1998 would not have occurred but for the emissions from
Mexico and thus no additional RACM need be implemented within the
Nogales NA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The estimated 24-hour average concentrations but for
international transport for the 29 exceedance days are provided in
Section 3.7 of ``Analysis of Ambient PM10 Levels,
Topography, and Meteorological Data in Nogales, Arizona: 2007-2009''
in Appendix D of the Nogales 2012 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration and Contingency Measures
in the Nogales Nonattainment Area

1. Reasonable Further Progress
    CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that plans for nonattainment areas
shall provide for reasonable further progress (RFP). RFP is defined in
section 171(1) as ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions of
the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.''
    The Nogales 2012 Plan cites EPA's determination that the area
attained the PM10 standard by the applicable attainment date
as affirming that RFP requirements have been met. We agree that the RFP
requirement was met in the Nogales NA by 1994 through the various
paving projects and other measures implemented by the city of Nogales,
Santa Cruz County, and U.S. Customs Service because the measures in
fact provided the incremental reductions needed by the area to attain
by the applicable attainment date (1994). In addition, for the same
reasons that no additional RACM need be implemented in the Nogales NA,
notwithstanding the advent of violations of the PM10
standard once again in 1998, we believe that no additional RFP
demonstration must be submitted by ADEQ for this area.
2. Contingency Measures
    Regarding contingency measures, under CAA section 172(c)(9), all
attainment plans must include contingency measures to be implemented if
an area fails to meet RFP (RFP contingency measures) and contingency
measures to be implemented if an area fails to attain the
PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (attainment
contingency measures). These contingency measures must be fully adopted
rules or control measures that are ready to be implemented quickly
without significant additional action by the State. They must also be
measures not relied on in the plan to demonstrate RFP or attainment and
should provide SIP-creditable emissions reductions equivalent to one
year of RFP. Finally, the SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the
contingency measures and specify a schedule for their implementation.
    EPA guidance also provides that contingency measures could be
implemented early, i.e., prior to the milestone or attainment date.\61\
Consistent with this policy, states are allowed to use excess
reductions from already adopted measures to meet the CAA section
172(c)(9) contingency measure requirement. This is because the purpose
of contingency measures is to provide extra reductions that are not

relied on for RFP or attainment that will provide for continued
progress while the plan is being revised to fully address the failure
to meet the required milestone or failure to meet the standard by the
applicable attainment date. Nothing in the CAA precludes a State from
implementing such measures before they are triggered. This approach has
been approved in numerous SIPs. See 62 FR 15844; (April 3, 1997),
(approval of the Indiana portion of the Chicago area 15 percent Rate of
Progress plan); 66 FR 30811; (June 8, 2001), (proposed approval of the
Rhode Island post-1996 ROP plan); and 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634; (January
3, 2001), (approval of the Massachusetts and Connecticut 1-hour ozone
attainment demonstrations). In the only adjudicated challenge to this
approach, the court upheld it. See Louisiana Environmental Action
Network v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004). The Nogales 2012 Plan
points to the paving projects that have been implemented since 1994 as
meeting the contingency measure requirement for the Nogales NA and as
the justification for not including any additional contingency measures
in the 2012 Nogales Plan. In assessing the extent of road paving in the
Nogales NA, ADEQ consulted with officials in the city of Nogales and
Santa Cruz County to determine the extent of road paving since 1992,
when the Nogales NA began to record ambient PM10 levels
below the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Memorandum, G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch to Air Directors, ``Contingency Measures for Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide Redesignations,'' June 1, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, in the 1993 Nogales PM10 Plan, the city
of Nogales committed to paving all public roads in the city by 1998.
For the purposes of the Nogales 2012 Plan, ADEQ reviewed the status of
implementation of the city's paving program, and using aerial
photography, ADEQ identified 11 unpaved roads that were paved between
1993 and 1996 totaling 8.4 miles.\62\ Among these 11 roads, ADEQ could
locate traffic data for only nine of them (totaling 7.7 miles) from
which to estimate the associated reduction in PM10
emissions. Based on the control effectiveness of paving and available
traffic data, ADEQ estimated that paving of the nine roads between 1993
and 1996 reduced PM10 emissions by approximately 80 tons per
year. See Table 5.3 from the Nogales 2012 Plan.\63\ Assuming that half
that reduction occurred after 1994, the resulting reduction that was
surplus to the attainment needs for the Nogales NA was approximately 40
tons per year, although the actual reduction was greater than 40 tons
per year because two specific roadways that were paved (but for which
no traffic data was available) were not included in the calculation.
ADEQ also checked on the status of the paving program with officials
from the city of Nogales who reported that all of the unpaved public
roads in Nogales have been paved and accepted into the City's Street
Maintenance Program.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See Appendix E.4 of the Nogales 2012 Plan for aerial
photography used in implementation review.
    \63\ See Appendix E of the Nogales 2012 Plan for the Technical
Support Document concerning the calculation of these emission
reduction estimates.
    \64\ Correspondence from Juan Guerra, City Engineer, City of
Nogales, Arizona to James Wagner, ADEQ; April 11, 2012; see Appendix
F.3 of Nogales 2012 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a similar implementation review using aerial photography and
data provided by Santa Cruz County, ADEQ estimated that Santa Cruz
County paved/chip-sealed 40 miles of unpaved roads between 1994 and
2001 and an additional 40 miles of unpaved roads between 2002 and 2008.
Traffic data was available, however, for only approximately 10 miles of
the total 80 miles of paving/chip-sealing in the post-attainment era,
but ADEQ estimates that paving/chip-sealing this subset of the larger
amount reduced PM10 emissions in the Nogales NA by
approximately 110 tons per year. See Table 5.4 in the 2012 Nogales
Plan.65 66 Overall, Santa Cruz County and ADEQ provided
different estimates of the number and extent of paved/chip-sealed roads
and unpaved roads in the unincorporated area of the Nogales NA, but
both sets of estimates indicate that more than 70 percent of the roads
in the unincorporated area within the Nogales NA are paved/chip-sealed
at the present time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See appendix E.4 of the Nogales 2012 Plan for aerial
photography used in implementation review.
    \66\ See Appendix E.2 of the Nogales 2012 Plan for supporting
information from Santa Cruz County concerning paving/chip-sealing
projects completed by the County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the data collected by ADEQ and presented in
the Nogales 2012 Plan, we agree with ADEQ that post-1994 paving
projects in the Nogales NA have provided PM10 emissions
reductions beyond those relied upon by RFP or attainment and have also
served to ensure that emissions generated within the Nogales NA do not
cause a violation of the PM10 standard. The city of Nogales
and Santa Cruz County did not wait until a triggering event to
implement the paving projects but continued the paving programs that
began in the late 1980s and that helped the Nogales NA attain the
standard by the applicable attainment date (1994). These projects have
provided significant PM10 emissions reductions, i.e.,
greater than 150 tons per year if all of the unpaved roads that were
paved/chip-sealed were included, beyond that required for attainment by
the applicable attainment date.
    We consider such ``early'' implementation of contingency measures
to be acceptable in this instance because the associated emissions
reductions provide extra reductions that are not relied upon for RFP or
attainment and that provide extra assurance that no violations would
occur in the Nogales NA but for emissions from Mexico. The
effectiveness of implementation of the contingency measures is
supported by the conclusion in ADEQ's section 179B demonstration that
estimates that the highest 24-hour PM10 concentration in
Nogales, but for emissions from Mexico, during the 2007-2009 period was
107 [micro]g/m\3\, i.e., well below the 150 [micro]g/m\3\ standard.
Therefore, we conclude that implementation of the post-1994 paving
projects in the Nogales NA meets the contingency measure requirement of
section 172(c)(9).

E. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity

1. Requirements for Transportation Conformity
    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the
EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A. Our transportation conformity rule requires that
transportation plans, programs, and projects developed by Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas
conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for
determining whether or not they do so. Conformity to the SIP means that
transportation activities will not cause or contribute to new air
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the national ambient air quality standards or any interim
milestone.
    Control strategy SIP submittals (such as RFP and attainment SIP
submittals) must specify the maximum emissions of transportation-
related emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems
allowed in the appropriate years, i.e., the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEB or ``budgets''). The submittal must also demonstrate that
these transportation-related emissions levels, when considered with
emissions from all

other sources, are consistent with RFP or attainment of the NAAQS,
whichever is applicable. MPOs cannot use the budgets and the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) cannot approve a Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) or Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
conformity analysis using the budgets until EPA had made an affirmative
adequacy finding based on a preliminary review of the SIP. MPOs must
use budgets in a submitted but not yet approved SIP, after EPA has
determined that the budgets are adequate. For EPA to find these
emissions levels or ``budgets'' adequate and/or approvable, the
submittal must meet the conformity adequacy provisions of 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4) and (5). Also, motor vehicle emissions budgets cannot be
approved until EPA completes a detailed review of the entire SIP and
determines that the SIP and the budgets will achieve their intended
purpose (i.e., RFP, attainment or maintenance). For more information on
the transportation conformity requirement and applicable policies on
budgets, please visit our transportation conformity Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
    PM10 attainment and RFP plans should identify budgets
for direct PM10 and PM10 attainment plan
precursors. Direct PM10 budgets should include
PM10 motor vehicle emissions from tailpipe, brake wear, and
tire wear. States must also consider whether reentrained paved and
unpaved road dust or highway and transit construction dust are
significant contributors and should be included in the direct
PM10 budget. (See 40 CFR 93.102(b) and 93.122(e) and the
conformity rule preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031-40036; (July 1, 2004)).
The applicability of emission trading between conformity budgets for
conformity purposes is described in 40 CFR 93.124(c).
2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget for the Nogales Nonattainment Area
    Usually, States are required to consult with local metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) when developing a MVEB. The Nogales NA
does not have an MPO. To develop the MVEB, ADEQ consulted with EPA and
the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). The Federal Highway
Administration's Highway Statistics statewide series data on Arizona
shows a decline in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) between 2007 and 2008,
and no change in VMT between 2008 and 2009. Emission inventory
estimates for 2011 show a slight decrease in VMT. This trend is
consistent with economic conditions. As discussed earlier in this
proposed rule, the section 179B demonstration shows attainment of the
PM10 standard in the Nogales NA, but for emissions from
Mexico. The section 179B demonstration, proposed for approval herein,
relies on a detailed analysis of PM10 exceedances that
occurred during a specific three-year period (2007-2009), but assuming
the 2007-2009 period is representative of the post-attainment date
(1994) period, the conclusion that no violations would occur in Nogales
but for emissions from Mexico can be applied throughout the post-
attainment period. As such, there are several different years which are
consistent with the applicable requirements for reasonable further
progress and attainment, and which could be used for development of a
MVEB.\67\ The State chose 2011 as the year for the MVEB. The MVEB was
determined using information from the emissions inventories described
in Chapter 3 and included in Appendix B of the Nogales 2012 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv) requires motor vehicle emissions
budget(s), when considered together with all other emissions
sources, to be consistent with applicable requirements for
reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance (whichever
is relevant to the given implementation plan submission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's estimated MVEB for the Nogales NA includes
PM10 emissions from all on-road vehicle emissions source,
and reentrained fugitive dust from unpaved and paved roads. EPA's
current MOVES (MOVES2010a) emissions model for on-road mobile sources
was used to estimate the on-road motor vehicle portion of the 2011
MVEB. MOVES estimates tailpipe emissions from cars, trucks,
motorcycles, buses, as well as brake and tire wear. Secondary
PM10 derived from PM10 precursors are not
identified as sources of PM10 contributing to exceedances of
the PM10 NAAQS in the Nogales NA, either in the emissions
inventories or in the plan, in general.
    Fugitive emissions from paved and unpaved roads are affected by the
number of VMT, silt volume on paved roads, and other local factors.
Emissions estimates for these source categories were based on data
obtained from State and federal agencies for the 2008 NEI. Estimates
for Santa Cruz County were then apportioned to the Nogales NA based on
population. The 2011 p.m.10 motor vehicle emissions budget for the
Nogales NA was estimated at 1,000.3 tons per year. See Table 10.

      Table 10--2011 Nogales NA PM10 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
                                 [Tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Source category                            PM10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unpaved Road Dust............................................      864.9
Paved Road Dust..............................................      121.4
On-road Motor Vehicle--Gasoline..............................        2.6
On-road Motor Vehicle--Diesel................................       11.4
                                                              ----------
    Total....................................................    1,000.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 7.1 of the Nogales 2012 Plan and ``2008 and 2011 PM10
  Emissions Inventories for the Nogales NA, Santa Cruz County, Arizona''
  in Appendix B of the Nogales 2012 Plan.

3. Proposed Action on the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget for the
Nogales Nonattainment Area
    We propose to approve the MVEB for the Nogales NA as submitted by
ADEQ contingent upon ADEQ's inclusion of road construction
PM10 in the MVEB. Road construction PM10 should
be included because, as the second largest source of PM10
emissions generated within the Nogales NA, road construction
PM10 is a significant contributor to the overall Nogales NA
PM10 inventory. See 40 CFR 93.122(e). As revised to include
road construction PM10, we propose to approve the MVEB for
three reasons. First, we find that the MVEB is derived from a
comprehensive, accurate, and current emissions inventory that we
believe meets the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. Second,
the MVEB includes all on-road sources of PM10 including
fugitive dust emissions from unpaved and paved roads and will include
road construction PM10, and was estimated using the latest
motor vehicle emissions model available at the time of the emissions
inventory was composed, the MOVES2010a model. Third, the MVEB are
derived from emissions estimates used by ADEQ in the section 179B
demonstration to show that the Nogales area would attain the
PM10 standard, but for emissions from Mexico.

VI. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Comment

    Based on our review, EPA proposes to approve this moderate area
plan submitted by Arizona to attain the PM10 NAAQS for the
Nogales nonattainment area. Specifically, under CAA section 110(k)(3),
EPA proposes to approve the following elements of the Nogales 2012
p.m.10 attainment plan:
    (1) The 2008 base year and 2011 emissions inventories as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3);
    (2) the demonstration of attainment but for international emissions
as

meeting the requirements of CAA section 179B(a)(1);
    (3) the implementation of paving projects and capital improvement
projects at the Ports of Entry within the Nogales NA prior to the
attainment deadline (1994) as meeting the RACM/RACT requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(1), 179B(a)(2), and 189(c)(1)(C);
    (4) the implementation of paving projects and capital improvement
projects at the Ports of Entry to meet the RFP demonstration
requirement of CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 179B(a)(2);
    (5) the implementation of post-1994 paving projects as meeting the
contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
179B(a)(2); and,
    (6) the 2011 attainment year motor vehicle emissions budget if
revised to include road construction PM10, because, as
revised, it is derived from the section 179B demonstration and meets
the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and of 40 CFR 93, subpart A.
    Even with our proposed approval of Arizona's demonstration that the
Nogales NA is attaining the PM10 NAAQS but for international
transport from Mexico, any final action resulting from this proposal
would not constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA section
107(d)(3) because we have not determined that the area has met the
other CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS. The classification and designation status in 40
CFR part 81 would remain moderate nonattainment for the Nogales NA
until such time as EPA determines that Arizona has met the CAA
requirements for redesignating the Nogales NA to attainment for the
PM10 NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this Federal Register Notice. We will accept comments from
the public on this proposal for the 30 days after publication of this
proposed rule in the Federal Register. We will consider these comments
before taking final action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    With this action, we propose to approve the moderate area
PM10 plan submitted by Arizona for the Nogales NA and, if
finalized, this proposed action would not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law or by the CAA. For that
reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000),
because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian
Tribes and thus will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: June 20, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-15544 Filed 6-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 35378]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 175 and 183

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0206]
RIN 1825-AB34

Installation and Use of Engine Cut-Off Switches on Recreational
Vehicles

Correction

    Proposed Rule document 2011-14140 was inadvertently published in
the Rules section of the issue of June 8, 2011, beginning on page
33161. It should have appeared in the Proposed Rules section.

[FR Doc. 2011-15122 Filed 6-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register: December 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 71998-71999]
[DOCID:fr19de07-147]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-01-10578, FMCSA-03-16241]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
10 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the
exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective December 31, 2007. Comments must be
received on or before January 18, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-01-10578, FMCSA-03-16241,
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 or Courier: 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.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    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 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: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our 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, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78; Apr. 11, 2000).
This information is also available at http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Chief, Physical
Qualifications 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-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 procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 10 individuals who have requested a renewal
of their exemption in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 10 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
Ronald G. Austin
Rickey C. Dalton
Martiniano L. Espinosa
Derek T. Ford
Paul C. Gruenberg, Jr.
James G. LaBair
Dennis A. Leschke
Lonnie Lomax, Jr.
Eugene C. Murphy
Carl W. Skinner, Jr.
    These exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual have a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard 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 and
retain a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded 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(e) and
31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer

than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 10 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (66 FR 53826; 66 FR 66966; 68 FR 69434; 71 FR 646; 68 FR
61857; 68 FR 75715). Each of these 10 applicants has requested renewal
of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the standard specified at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a
review of each record of safety while driving with the respective
vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant
continues to meet the vision exemption standards. These factors provide
an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to
drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that
extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two
years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing
without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by January 18, 2008.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 10 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was based on the merits of each
case and only after careful consideration of the comments received to
its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all of these drivers, are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: December 12, 2007.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
 [FR Doc. E7-24559 Filed 12-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


TO:	EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146

FROM:	Bob Lucas, EPA/SPPD

DATE:	July 27, 2007

SUBJECT:	Marine Vessel Loading:  Control Options and Impact Estimates

I.	Purpose

This memorandum documents the methodology used to identify the control
options and estimate the costs and environmental impacts for marine
vessel loading control options.

II.	Background

Section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA) directs the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess source categories
regulated under Section 112(d) of the CAA and determine whether any
human health or environmental risks remain from the continued emissions
of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) following implementation of maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards.  The CAA further states
that if the MACT standards do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risk to
the most exposed individual to less than one in one million, EPA must
set additional standards to protect human health and the environment, in
accordance with the interpretation set forth in the Benzene NESHAP.
Additionally, the EPA is 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, under CAA section 112(d)(6).  The
Refinery MACT 1 (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart CC) was promulgated over 8 years
ago and is now being reviewed.

III.	Summary of Existing Refinery MACT 1 Marine Vessel Loading Control
Requirements

Refinery MACT 1, subpart CC requires control of marine vessel loading
terminals with HAP emissions greater than 10 tons per year of a single
HAP or greater than 25 tons per year total HAP when loading commodities
with vapor pressure greater than or equal to 10.3 kilopascals [1.5
psia].  Refinery MACT 1 marine vessel loading must meet the control
requirements specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart Y (National Emission
Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations).  Subpart Y defines
Marine tank vessel loading operation as:

any operation under which a commodity is bulk loaded onto a marine tank
vessel from a terminal, which may include the loading of multiple marine
tank vessels during one loading operation.  Marine tank vessel loading
operations do not include refueling of marine tank vessels.

The applicability section of subpart Y indicates that Sources with
emissions of 10 or 25 tons per year are subject to emissions standards
requiring 97 percent emissions reduction for existing sources and 98
percent emissions reduction for new sources.  Sources with emissions of
10 or 25 tons per year means major sources(s) having aggregate actual
HAP emissions from marine tank vessels loading operations at all loading
berths of 9.1 Mg (10 tons) or more of each individual HAP or 22.7 Mg (25
tons) or more of all HAP combined.

Commodities with vapor pressures greater than or equal to 10.3
kilopascals (1.5 psia) are subject to the requirements.  Typical
commodities loaded at petroleum refineries marine terminals with vapor
pressures greater than 10.3 kPa would include gasoline and other
products such as naphtha.  Other products such as toluene and kerosene
have vapor pressures less than 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia).  Distillate fuel oil
No. 2 (or diesel gasoline) has vapor pressures less than 0.5 psia.

IV.	Identification of Control Options

Control options were reviewed for marine vessel loading with lower HAP
emissions cutoff values than the current NESHAP levels (i.e., 10 or 25
tons).  One marine vessel loading control options was identified.

Option:  Require emissions reduction for marine tank vessel loading
operations with HAP emissions greater than 7.5 tons per year for single
HAP or greater than 18.75 tons per year for multiple HAP and for
commodities with vapor pressure greater than or equal to 10.3
kilopascals.  (Emissions reduction requirements are 97 percent for
existing sources and 98 percent for new sources.)

V.	Impact Estimates for Model Marine vessel loadings

Model Plant Marine Vessel Loading Operations

The marine terminal emissions cutoffs for the control option are HAP
emissions greater than 7.5 tons per year for single HAP or greater than
18.75 tons per year for multiple HAP.  The 18.75 ton/yr cutoff is
represented by Model Plant 1 at 20 ton/yr multiple HAP, and the 7.5
ton/yr cutoff is represented by Model Plant 2 at 8.0 ton/yr single HAP.
An analysis was conducted for two commodities typically loaded at marine
terminal operations at Refinery MACT 1 sources:  a gasoline analysis and
a naphtha analysis.

Gasoline commodity:  A corresponding annual gasoline throughput was
estimated from the HAP emissions cutoff levels:  first, a back
calculation of VOC emissions from an estimated percentage of HAP in VOC
emissions was conducted, and then a back calculation of gasoline
throughput from VOC emissions based on an AP-42 VOC emissions factor was
conducted.  A gasoline throughput of approximately 2.58 million barrels
per year is estimated to emit HAP emissions at 20 ton/yr for multiple
HAP (Model Plant 1), and a throughput of approximately 2.53 million
barrels per year is estimated to emit at 8.0 ton/yr for single HAP Model
Plant 2).  (For example, based on average refinery gasoline vapor phase
compositions from Refinery MACT 1, it is assumed that VOC emissions are
approximately 10.8 percent by weight HAP.  The VOC emissions were back
calculated from the total HAP emissions of 20 tons per year to be 184.0
tons per year VOC.  Using an emissions factor of 3.4 lb VOC per 1,000
gallons of gasoline loaded from Table 5.2-2 of AP-42 section 5.2
[assumed typical overall loading situation emissions factor, for barge
loading and dedicated normal service], the gasoline throughput was back
calculated from 184.0 tons per year of VOC emissions and was estimated
to be 2.57 million barrels per year.)

Naphtha commodity:  A corresponding annual naphtha throughput was
estimated from the HAP emissions cutoff levels:  first, a back
calculation of VOC emissions from an estimated percentage of HAP in VOC
emissions was conducted, and then a back calculation of naphtha
throughput from VOC emissions based on an AP-42 VOC emissions factor was
conducted.  A naphtha throughput of approximately 4.01 million barrels
per year is estimated to emit HAP emissions at 20 ton/yr for multiple
HAP (Model Plant 1), and a throughput of 2.11 million barrels per year
is estimated to emit 8.0 ton/yr for single HAP (Model Plant 2).  (For
example, based on average refinery naphtha vapor phase compositions from
Refinery MACT 1, it is assumed that VOC emissions are approximately 13.5
percent by weight HAP.  The VOC emissions were back calculated from the
total HAP emissions of 20 tons per year to be 147.8 tons per year VOC.
Using an emissions factor of 1.75 lb VOC per 1,000 gallons of naphtha
loaded, the naphtha throughput was back calculated from 147.8 tons per
year of VOC emissions and was estimated to be 4.01 million barrels per
year.  The emissions factor was estimated using equation 1 from section
5.2 of AP-42, based on a saturation factor of 0.5 assumed submerged
loading for barges [this assumption provides a higher emissions factor
than the 0.2 saturation factor for marine vessel loading to ships]; a
vapor pressure based on naphtha of 1.9 psia, molecular weight of 80
lb/lb mole; and temperature of 80ºF.)

The model plants for marine vessel loading controls from the proposal
TSD for Marine Vessel Loading Operations were used to estimate control
costs.  The model plants in the proposal TSD for Marine Vessel Loading
were based on model terminals developed by the Marine Board of the
National Council on Engineering and Technical Systems.  The models
included both crude loading and product loading (the term “product”
is used to mean any commodity other than crude oil), however, only the
product loading models were considered for this Refinery MACT1 analysis,
as loading of crude from a petroleum refinery was considered unlikely.
The model plants for product loading represented commodity loading on
inland river barges and ships and on barges and included various
commodity throughput ranges.  Two model plants for product loading from
the TSD for Marine Vessel Loading Operations were selected (Model Plant
5C and Model Plant 7A, from Table 3-1, Description of Model Terminals)
to simulate marine vessel loading operations at Refinery MACT 1 sources
that would be subject to the control options, as these two models
matched the range of throughputs of 2.11 million barrels per year to
4.01 million barrels per year estimated for the HAP emissions cutoffs
for Model Plant 1 and Model Plant 2.

Model Plant Emissions Estimates

For this analysis, the baseline emissions correspond to the model plant
HAP emissions levels of 8.0 tons per year single HAP or 20 tons per year
multiple HAP.  Based on average refinery gasoline vapor compositions
(Refinery MACT 1), benzene emissions were estimated to be 0.626 percent
of the total VOC emissions, and hexane emissions were estimated to be
7.6 percent of VOC.  Based on naphtha vapor compositions, benzene
emissions are estimated to be 1.06 percent and hexane emissions are
estimated to be 14.2 percent of total VOC emissions.  Baseline emissions
for HAP for the control option are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.  Model Plant Emissions of Refinery Marine Vessel Loading

Control Option:	HAP Emissions

	Gasoline commodity	Naphtha commodity

Model Plant 1 (Multiple HAP emissions 20 ton/yr)

Throughput, bbl/yr	2.58 million	4.01 million

Total HAP, ton/yr	20	20

Hexane, ton/yr	8.15	15.2

Benzene, ton/yr	1.15	1.57

Model Plant 2 (Individual HAP emissions 8.0 ton/yr

Throughput, bbl/yr	2.53 million	2.11 million

Total HAP, ton/yr	19.6	10.5

Hexane, ton/yr	8.0	8.0

Benzene, ton/yr	1.13	0.826

Emissions reductions for control of emissions from marine vessel
loadings were estimated based on control with a thermal oxidizer
achieving an efficiency of 97 percent.  The emissions reductions for HAP
are shown in Table 2.  The range of emissions reductions are shown by
Model Plant 1 with gasoline as the commodity at 19.4 ton/yr emissions
reduction and by Model Plant 2 with naphtha as the commodity at 10.2
ton/yr emissions reductions.

Table 2.  Model Plant Emissions Impacts of Refinery Marine Vessel
Loading Control Options

Commodity	Model Plant 1:  Multiple HAP cutoff, 20 ton/yr	Model Plant 2:
Single HAP cutoff, 8.0 ton/yr

	HAP Baseline emissions, ton/yr	HAP Emission Reduction from Baseline,
ton/yr	HAP Baseline emissions, ton/yr	HAP Emission Reduction from
Baseline, ton/yr

Gasoline	20	19.4	19.6	19.1

Naphtha	20	19.4	10.5	10.2

Model Plant Control Costs

Control costs were taken from the proposal TSD for Marine Vessel Loading
Operations (Model Plant 5C, from Table 3-6 for Capital and Annual Costs:
 Model 5C; and Model Plant 7A, from Table 3-10 for Capital and Annual
Costs:  Model 7A); the costs for these two models were averaged.
Capital costs for vessel retrofits from the original TSD analysis were
not included in the current analysis as it was assumed that vessel
retrofits likely have already occurred because many of the vessels would
also service marine vessel terminals that are subject to the control
requirements of subpart Y.  Rough estimates were made to scale the
capital and annual costs for the average model plant to 2006 costs.  As
the cost estimates were originally developed in 1987 dollars, the
capital costs were escalated to 2006 dollars using the Chemical
Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI).  The average CEPCI in 1987 was
323.8; the average CEPCI in 2006 was 499.6.  The scaled 2006 capital
costs for model plants 5C and 7A are shown in Table 2.

Annual operating costs were also escalated to 2006 dollars.  Current
loaded labor rates and current energy unit costs were used to update
costs to 2006.  The model plant control costs for the control option
were considered to be average costs per marine vessel terminal.

Table 2.  Model Plant Capital and Annual Costs for Thermal Oxidizer
Control of Refinery Marine Vessel Loading

Costs	Model 5C	Model 7A	Average model

	Thermal Oxidizer, 1987 $	Thermal Oxidizer, 2006 $	Thermal Oxidizer,
1987 $	Thermal Oxidizer, 2006 $	Thermal Oxidizer, 2006 $

Capital Costs a

Incinerator	$290,000	$447,000	$371,000	$572,000	$510,000

Inert gas generator	$63,400	$97,800	$312,000	$481,000	$290,000

Water system	$15,800	$23,400	$29,200	$45,100	$34,700

Other major equipment	$118,000	$182,000	$337,000	$520,000	$351,000

Piping	$139,000	$214,000	$1,020,000	$1,570,000	$894,000

Instrumentation	$29,500	$45,500	$69,600	$107,000	$76,500

Engineering, startup, contingencies	$164,000	$253,000	$535,000	$825,000
$539,000

TCI	$819,000	$1,260,000	$2,680,000	$4,130,000	$2,700,000

Annual costs

Labor b	$1,760	$7,220	$1,760	$7,220	$7,220

Maintenance c	$36,200	$49,800	$68,200	$81,800	$65,800

Natural gas d	$19,900	$45,700	$96,600	$222,000	$134,000

Electricity e	$2,310	$2,970	$10,400	$13,400	$8,160

Overhead f 	$22,800	$34,200	$42,000	$53,400	$43,800

Property taxes, insurance, and administration g	$32,800	$50,600	$107,000
$165,000	$108,000

Capital recovery h	$127,000	$196,000	$389,000	$600,000	$398,000

TAC	$243,000	$386,000	$715,000	$1,140,000	$765,000

a  Rough estimates of capital costs were made to scale the 1987 costs to
2006 costs based on CEPCI of 323.6 for 1987 and 499.6 for 2006.

b  Assume 0.5 hr/shift for the incinerator and 0.5 hr/shift for the IG
generator.  Operator labor for 2006 is $28.90/hr.

c  Assume 0.5 hr per shift for the incinerator and 0.5 hr/shift for the
IG generator; multiplied by 2 for parts; addition of $32,800 for model
plant 5C and $64,800 for model plant 7A.  Maintenance labor for 2006 is
$33.99/hr.2

d  Annual natural gas usage is 5,802,000 ft3 for model plant 5C; annual
natural gas usage is 28,163,000 ft3 for model plant 7A.  Natural gas
costs in 2006 were $7.88/1000 ft3.

e  Electricity usage was not reported in proposal TSD for Marine Vessel
Loading Operations and neither was the unit cost in 1987.  As an
alternative, the costs were scaled up based on a ratio of unit costs for
1990 to unit costs for 2006.  Electricity costs were $0.0474/kWhr in
1990 and were $0.0609/kWhr in 2006.  (Electricity unit costs were not
found for 1987; the closest available year was 1990.),

f  Overhead is 60 percent of labor and maintenance costs.

g  Taxes, insurance, and administration costs are 4 percent of capital
costs.

h  Capital recovery costs were estimated as 0.1675 of capital costs
without piping costs plus 0.1175 of piping capital costs.  CRF estimated
based on interest rate of 10 percent, equipment life of 10 years, and
piping life of 20 years.

Model Plant Emissions Reductions and Control Cost Impacts

The model plant impacts are summarized in Table 3, including the total
capital costs, total annualized costs, and the cost effectiveness.  The
impacts for Model Plant 1 with gasoline and the impacts for Model Plant
2 with naphtha commodity are shown as these represent the range of the
cost effectiveness values that would be expected at marine vessel
loading operations at the emissions cutoff for the control option.

Table 3.  Model Plant Impacts of Refinery Marine Vessel Loading Control
Options a

Model Plant	Total Capital Investment, $	Total Annualized Cost, $	HAP
Emission Reduction from Baseline, tons	Total Cost Effectiveness for
HAP, $/ton HAP

Model Plant 1:  Emissions 20 tpy multiple HAP (Gasoline commodity)	$2.70
million	$0.765 million	19.4 b	$39,400/ton HAP b

Model Plant 2:  Emissions 8.0 tpy single HAP (Naphtha commodity)	$2.70
million	$0.765 million	10.2 c	$74,800/ton HAP c

a  Average model costs from Table 2 were applied to both Model Plant 1
and Model Plant 2.

b  For the gasoline commodity, the emissions reductions based on the
single HAP emissions cutoff of 7.5 ton/yr would be 17.9 ton/yr and the
cost effectiveness would be $42,800/ton HAP.

c  For the naphtha commodity, the emissions reductions based on the
single HAP emissions cutoff of 7.5 ton/yr would be 9.58 ton/yr and the
cost effectiveness would be $79,800/ton HAP.

Technical Memorandum – Marine Vessel Loading:  Control Options and
Impact Estimates

July 27, 2007

Page   PAGE  6

Technical Memorandum

 VOC/HAP Emissions from Marine Vessel Loading Operations – Technical
Support Document for Proposed Standards.  EPA Publication No.
EPA-450/3-92-001a.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards.  Research Triangle Park, NC.  May 1992.

   Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2006 labor rates (accessed June
2007).

   Natural Gas Monthly, June 2007.  Table 3, Selected National Average
Natural Gas Prices, 2002-2007.  Energy Information Administration.

   Electric Power Monthly with data for April 2007.  Table 5.3, Average
Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers:  Total by End-Use
Sector, 1993 through April 2007.  Energy Information Administration.

   Electric Power Monthly with data for September 2003.  Table 5.3,
Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers:  Total by
End-Use Sector, 1990 through September 2003.  Energy Information
Administration.