[Federal Register: October 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 195)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58481-58491]
[DOCID:fr07oc08-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 59

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0411; FRL-8725-9]
RIN 2060-AP01

Consumer and Commercial Products, Group IV: Control Techniques
Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Miscellaneous Metal Products
Coatings, Plastic Parts Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly
Coatings, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, and Miscellaneous
Industrial Adhesives

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; Notice of final determination and availability of
final control techniques guidelines.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 183(e)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act, EPA has
determined that control techniques guidelines will be substantially as
effective as national regulations in reducing emissions of volatile
organic compounds in ozone national ambient air quality standard
nonattainment areas from the following five Group IV product
categories: miscellaneous metal products coatings, plastic parts
coatings, auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings, fiberglass boat
manufacturing materials, and miscellaneous industrial adhesives. Based
on this determination, EPA is issuing control techniques guidelines in
lieu of national regulations for these product categories. These
control techniques guidelines will provide guidance to the States
concerning EPA's recommendations for reasonably available control
technology-level controls for these product categories. EPA further
takes final action to list the five Group IV consumer and commercial
product categories addressed in this notice pursuant to CAA Section
183(e).

DATES: This final action is effective on October 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established the following dockets for these actions:
Consumer and Commercial Products, Group IV--Determination to Issue
Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations, Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0411; Consumer and Commercial Products--Miscellaneous Metal
and Plastic Parts Coatings, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0412; Consumer
and Commercial Products--Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings,
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0413; Consumer and Commercial Products--
Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0415; and Consumer and Commercial Products--Miscellaneous Industrial
Adhesives, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0460. All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and is publicly available only
in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 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
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the Clean
Air Act (CAA) Section 183(e) consumer and commercial products program,
contact Mr. Bruce Moore, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and
Commerce Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For further information on technical
issues concerning the determination and control techniques guidelines
(CTG) documents for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, or
for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, contact: Ms. Kaye
Whitfield, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and Commerce
Group (E143-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For further information on technical
issues concerning the determination and CTG for auto and light-duty
truck assembly coatings or the revision of the Automobile Topcoat
Protocol, contact: Mr. Dave Salman, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings
and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For further information on technical
issues concerning the determination and CTG for miscellaneous
industrial adhesives, contact: Ms. Martha Smith, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, Natural Resources and Commerce Group (E143-03), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Entities Potentially Affected by this Action. The entities
potentially affected by this action include industrial facilities that
use the respective consumer and commercial products covered in this
action as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                      NAICS code \a\                 Examples of affected entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous metal and plastic      331, 332, 333, 334, 336,     Facilities that manufacture and repair
 parts coatings.                      482, 811.                    fabricated metal, machinery, computer and
                                                                   electronic equipment, transportation
                                                                   equipment, rail transportation equipment.
Auto and light-duty truck assembly   336111, 336112, 336211.....  Automobile and light-duty truck assembly
 coatings.                                                         plants, producers of automobile and light-
                                                                   duty truck bodies.
Fiberglass boat manufacturing        336612.....................  Boat building facilities.
 materials.
Miscellaneous industrial adhesives.  316, 321, 326, 331, 332,     Facilities that manufacture and repair leather
                                      333, 334, 336, 337, 339,     and allied products, wood products, plastic
                                      482, 811.                    and rubber products, fabricated metal,
                                                                   machinery, computer and electronic equipment,
                                                                   transportation equipment, furniture and
                                                                   related products, rail transportation
                                                                   equipment, and facilities involved in
                                                                   miscellaneous manufacturing.
Federal Government.................  ...........................  Not affected.
State/local/Tribal government......  ...........................  State, local and Tribal regulatory agencies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 this
action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate EPA contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the
Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of the final 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.
    Judicial Review. Under Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of EPA's listing and final determination is available only by
filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit by December 8, 2008. Under Section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the final determination
that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for
public comment can be raised during judicial review.

Organization of this Document

    The information presented in this document is organized as follows:

I. Background Information
    A. The Ozone Problem
    B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
    C. Significance of Control Techniques Guidelines Documents
(CTGs)
II. Significant Changes to the Final CTGs
    A. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings
    B. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings
    C. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials
    D. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives
III. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's Determination
IV. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) 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
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background Information

A. The Ozone Problem

    Ground-level ozone, a major component of smog, is formed in the
atmosphere by reactions of volatile organic compounds (VOC)\1\ and
oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight. The formation of
ground-level ozone is a complex process that is affected by many
variables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See EPA's definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of
human health effects, as well as agricultural crop loss, and damage to
forests and ecosystems. Controlled human exposure studies show that
acute health effects are induced by short-term (1 to 2 hour) exposures
(observed at concentrations as low as 0.12 parts per million (ppm)),
generally while individuals are engaged in moderate or heavy exertion,
and by prolonged (6 to 8 hour) exposures to ozone (observed at
concentrations as low as 0.08 ppm and possibly lower), typically while
individuals are engaged in moderate exertion. Transient effects from
acute exposures include pulmonary inflammation, respiratory symptoms,
effects on exercise performance, and increased airway responsiveness.
Epidemiological studies have shown associations between ambient ozone
levels and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection, increased
hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Groups at increased risk
of experiencing elevated exposures include active children, outdoor
workers, and others who regularly engage in outdoor activities. Those
most susceptible to the effects of ozone include those with pre-
existing respiratory disease, children, and older adults. The
literature suggests the possibility that long-term exposures to ozone
may cause chronic health effects (e.g., structural damage to lung
tissue and accelerated decline in baseline lung function).

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    Under CAA Section 183(e), EPA conducted a study of VOC emissions
from the use of consumer and commercial products to assess their
potential to contribute to levels of ozone that violate the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, and to establish
criteria for regulating VOC emissions from these products. Section
183(e) of the CAA directs EPA to list for regulation those categories
of products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions,
on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial products
in areas that

violate the NAAQS for ozone (i.e., ozone nonattainment areas), and to
divide the list of categories to be regulated into four groups. EPA
published the initial list in the Federal Register on March 23, 1995
(60 FR 15264). In that notice, EPA stated that it may amend the list of
products for regulation, and the groups of product categories, in order
to achieve an effective regulatory program in accordance with the EPA's
discretion under CAA Section 183(e).
    EPA has revised the list several times. See 70 FR 69759 (November
17, 2005); 64 FR 13422 (March 18, 1999); and 71 FR 28320 (May 16,
2006). In the May 2006 revision, EPA added one product category,
portable fuel containers, and removed one product category, petroleum
dry cleaning solvents. As a result of these revisions, Group IV of the
list comprises five product categories: miscellaneous metal products
coatings, plastic parts coatings, auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings, fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, and miscellaneous
industrial adhesives. Pursuant to the court's order in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 1:01-cv-01597-PLF (D.C. Cir., March 31, 2006), EPA must take final
action on the product categories in Group IV by September 30, 2008. On
July 14, 2008, EPA published its proposed determination that a CTG is
substantially as effective as a regulation for each of these five
categories and announced availability of four draft CTGs (miscellaneous
metal products coatings and plastic parts coatings are addressed in one
CTG referred to as ``miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings'').
See 73 FR 40230.
    Any regulations issued under CAA Section 183(e) must be based on
``best available controls (BAC).'' CAA Section 183(e)(1)(A) defines BAC
as ``the degree of emissions reduction that the Administrator
determines, on the basis of technological and economic feasibility,
health, environmental, and energy impacts, is achievable through the
application of the most effective equipment, measures, processes,
methods, systems or techniques, including chemical reformulation,
product or feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for use,
consumption, storage, or disposal.'' CAA Section 183(e) also provides
EPA with authority to use any system or systems of regulation that EPA
determines is the most appropriate for the product category. Under
these provisions, EPA has previously issued ``national'' regulations
for autobody refinishing coatings, consumer products, architectural
coatings, portable fuel containers, and aerosol coatings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 63 FR 48806, 48819, and 48848 (September 11, 1998); 72
FR 8428 (February 26, 2007); and 73 FR 15604 (March 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA Section 183(e)(3)(C) further provides that EPA may issue a CTG
in lieu of a national regulation for a product category where EPA
determines that the CTG will be ``substantially as effective as
regulations'' in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment
areas. The statute does not specify how EPA is to make this
determination, but does provide a fundamental distinction between
national regulations and CTGs.
    Specifically, for national regulations, CAA Section 183(e) defines
regulated entities as:

    (i) . . . manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or
importers of consumer or commercial products for sale or
distribution in interstate commerce in the United States; or (ii)
manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, or importers that
supply the entities listed under clause (i) with such products for
sale or distribution in interstate commerce in the United States.
    Thus, under CAA Section 183(e), a regulation for consumer or
commercial products is limited to measures applicable to manufacturers,
processors, distributors, or importers of consumer and commercial
products supplied to the consumer or industry. CAA Section 183(e) does
not authorize EPA to issue national regulations that would directly
regulate end-users of these products. By contrast, CTGs are guidance
documents that recommend reasonably available control technology (RACT)
measures that States can adopt and apply to the end users of products.
This dichotomy (i.e., that EPA cannot directly regulate end-users under
CAA Section 183(e), but can address end-users through a CTG) created by
Congress is relevant to EPA's evaluation of the relative merits of a
national regulation versus a CTG.

C. Significance of Control Techniques Guidelines Documents (CTGs)

    CAA Section 172(c)(1) provides that State implementation plans
(SIPs) for nonattainment areas must include ``reasonably available
control measures (RACM),'' including RACT, for sources of emissions.
CAA Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides that for certain nonattainment areas,
States must revise their SIPs to include RACT for each category of VOC
sources covered by a CTG document issued between November 15, 1990, and
the date of attainment.
    EPA defines RACT as ``the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility, 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979).'' In subsequent
notices, EPA has addressed how States can meet the RACT requirements of
the CAA. Significantly, RACT for a particular industry is determined on
a case-by-case basis, considering issues of technological and economic
feasibility.
    EPA provides States with guidance concerning what types of controls
could constitute RACT for a given source category through issuance of a
CTG. The recommendations in the CTG are based on available data and
information and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the
circumstances of a specific source. States can follow the CTG and adopt
State regulations to implement the recommendations contained therein,
or they can adopt alternative approaches. In either event, States must
submit their RACT rules to EPA for review and approval as part of the
SIP process. EPA will evaluate the rules and determine, through notice
and comment rulemaking in the SIP approval process, whether the
submitted rules meet the RACT requirements of the CAA and EPA's
regulations. To the extent a State adopts any of the recommendations in
a CTG into its State RACT rules, interested parties can raise questions
and objections about the substance of the guidance and the
appropriateness of the application of the guidance to a particular
situation during the development of the State rules and EPA's SIP
approval process.
    We encourage States in developing their RACT rules to consider
carefully the facts and circumstances of the particular sources in
their States because, as noted above, RACT is determined on a case-by-
case basis, considering issues of technological and economic
feasibility. For example, a State may decide not to require 90 percent
control efficiency at facilities that are already well controlled, if
the additional emission reductions would not be cost-effective. States
may also want to consider reactivity-based approaches, as appropriate,
in developing their RACT regulations.\3\ Finally, if States consider
requiring more stringent VOC content limits than those recommended in
the CTGs, States may also wish to consider averaging, as appropriate.
In general, the RACT requirement is applied on a short-term

basis up to 24 hours.\4\ However, EPA guidance addresses averaging
times longer than 24 hours under certain conditions.\5\ The EPA's
``Economic Incentive Policy'' \6\ provides guidance on use of long-term
averages with regard to RACT and generally provides for averaging times
of no greater than 30 days. Thus, if the appropriate conditions are
present, States may wish to consider the use of averaging in
conjunction with more stringent limits. Because of the nature of
averaging, however, we would expect that any State RACT rules that
allow for averaging also include appropriate recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds
in Ozone State Implementation Plans,'' 70 FR 54046 (September 13,
2005).
    \4\ See, e.g., 52 FR 45108, col. 2, ``Compliance Periods''
(November 24, 1987). ``VOC rules should describe explicitly the
compliance timeframe associated with each emission limit (e.g.,
instantaneous or daily). However, where the rules are silent on
compliance time, EPA will interpret it as instantaneous.''
    \5\ Memorandum from John O'Connor, Acting Director of the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January 20, 1984, ``Averaging
Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Limits--SIP Revision
Policy.''
    \6\ ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,
January 2001,'' available at http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/
artd/air/policy/search.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By this action, we are taking final action to list the five Group
IV consumer and commercial product categories addressed in this notice
pursuant to CAA Section 183(e). Further, we are issuing final CTGs that
cover these five product categories in Group IV of the CAA Section
183(e) list. These CTGs are guidance to the States and provide
recommendations only. A State can determine what constitutes RACT for
these product categories, and EPA will review the State's rules
reflecting RACT in the context of the SIP process and determine whether
those rules meet the RACT requirements of the CAA and its implementing
regulations.
    Finally, CAA Section 182(b)(2) provides that a CTG issued after
1990 specify the date by which a State must submit a SIP revision in
response to the CTG. In the CTGs at issue here, EPA provides that
States should submit their SIP revisions within one year of the date
that the CTGs are finalized.

II. Significant Changes to the Final CTGs

    In response to comments, we have made certain changes to the final
CTGs for the Group IV consumer and commercial product categories.
Specifically, we have included definitions to clarify the scope of
certain types of products to which our recommended VOC limits apply.
Further, for various reasons described below, we have either added
recommended VOC limits specifically for certain specialty product
categories that would have otherwise been covered by more generic VOC
limits recommended in the CTG, or changed our draft recommended VOC
limits for certain specialty products. We also recommended not applying
the recommended limits to certain low-volume materials supplied in
small containers and clarified that the recommended limits do not apply
to aerosol spray cans. These changes, which are described in more
detail below, do not affect our proposed determination in the July 14,
2008 notice that a CTG is substantially as effective as a national rule
for addressing VOC emissions from the Group IV consumer and commercial
products in ozone nonattainment areas. None of the comments raised
issues with any of the rationales we provided in support of our
proposed determination. Further, because the above-mentioned changes to
our recommended limits make up only a very small percentage of the
consumer and commercial products listed under CAA Section 183(e) Group
IV, we do not believe that these changes alter the VOC emission
reductions discussed in the July 14, 2008 notice in any material way.
Thus, the rationales we expressed in the July notice in support of the
determination are unaffected by these changes. For the reasons
described in the July 2008 notice and this document, we have determined
that CTGs are substantially as effective as national rules for these
Group IV consumer and commercial products.
    Provided below is a summary of the changes made in each of the
final CTGs addressed in this notice.

A. Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings

    To further clarify the scope of each category for which we
recommend specific VOC limits, the final CTG includes a definition for
each of the coating categories with recommended VOC limits. These
definitions are adopted from the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) and Michigan rules that are the basis for the
recommended VOC limits.
    In response to public comments, we have added to our
recommendations in the final CTG specific VOC limits for eight
categories of pleasure craft (i.e., recreational boats) surface
coatings based on SCAQMD Rule 1106.1. We learned from the commenters
that VOC limits for pleasure craft are covered under SCAQMD Rule 1106.1
(February 12, 1999), and not under SCAQMD Rules 1107 and 1145, on which
the recommended VOC limits in the draft CTG were based. The commenters
also noted that pleasure craft surface coatings can not achieve the
limits in SCAQMD Rules 1107 and 1145 and at the same time meet
performance requirements for use in marine environments. In response to
these comments, we reviewed the VOC limits for pleasure craft surface
coatings in SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 and found that they reflect the RACT
level of control for these coatings. These limits are the same as those
in several other California Districts. All but three of these limits
have been in place since 1994 and the remaining three (extreme high
gloss coatings, finish primer/surfacer, and non-aluminum antifoulant
coatings) have been in effect since 2001. There is no indication that
the SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 VOC limits recommended by the commenters are
unachievable or unreasonable for sources outside these California
Districts. We are also not aware of any pleasure craft surface coating
operation performing under VOC limits lower than those provided in
SCAQMD Rule 1106.1. For the reasons stated above, we recommend in the
final CTG the VOC limits in SCAQMD Rule 1106.1 for pleasure craft
surface coatings to address these coatings' unique performance
requirements.
    In the draft CTG, we requested comment on whether certain materials
(sealers, deadeners, transit coatings, and cavity waxes) used at
automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants that were included in
the miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings category and
addressed in the draft CTG for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts
coatings should instead be included in the auto and light-duty truck
assembly coatings category and addressed in the CTG for that category.
All commenters on the draft CTG responded that recommendations for
these materials should be in the auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings category and addressed in the CTG for that category to
simplify implementation and compliance and to clarify EPA's
recommendations for these materials.
    In response to these comments, we have clarified in the final auto
and light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG that it covers the following
materials: automobile and light-duty truck cavity wax, automobile and
light-duty truck sealers, automobile and light-duty truck deadeners,
automobile and light-duty truck gasket/gasket sealing material,
automobile and light-duty truck

underbody coatings, and automobile and light-duty truck lubricating
wax/compound. For further discussion on how we address these materials,
please see section II.B of this notice and the final auto and light-
duty truck assembly coatings CTG.
    Similar materials are used in the production of vehicles other than
automobiles or light-duty trucks, or are related to the production of a
new automobile or new light-duty truck at a facility that is not an
automobile or light-duty truck assembly coatings facility. These
materials are included as ``motor vehicle'' materials in the
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings category and addressed
in the final CTG for this category. The same limits that are
recommended for ``automobile and light-duty truck'' materials in the
auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG are recommended for
``motor vehicle'' materials in this CTG. Please see section II.B of
this notice for the rationale for these recommended limits.
    The recommended VOC emission limits in the final miscellaneous
metal and plastic parts coatings CTG for the motor vehicle materials
described above are as follows (grams VOC per liter of coating, less
water and exempt compounds,\7\ g/l):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Exempt compounds are those classified by EPA as having
negligible photochemical reactivity as listed in 40 CFR 51.100(s).
Exempt compounds are not considered to be VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Motor vehicle cavity wax--650 g/l.
     Motor vehicle sealer--650 g/l.
     Motor vehicle deadener--650 g/l.
     Motor vehicle gasket/gasket sealing material--200 g/l.
     Motor vehicle underbody coating--650 g/l.
     Motor vehicle lubricating wax/compound--700 g/l.
     Motor vehicle trunk interior coating--650 g/l.
     Motor vehicle bedliner--200 g/l.
    In the final CTG, we revised the recommended VOC content limit for
high performance architectural coatings. The limit for this category in
the draft CTG was 3.5 lb VOC/gallon, less water and exempt compounds.
We received a comment that there are no liquid high performance
architectural coatings available today that can meet this limit. The
commenter suggested a limit of 6.2 lb VOC/gallon. According to the
commenter, reformulated liquid coatings can meet this limit, and
further reformulation may not be technically feasible while still
meeting the requisite performance characteristics for high performance
architectural coatings. The commenter also referenced the organic HAP
content limit for these coatings in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. The commenter noted that
the NESHAP limit is consistent with a VOC content of 6.2 lb VOC/gallon.
The commenter also noted that converting from a liquid coating to a
powder coating or installing and operating add-on controls would be
necessary in order to meet the VOC limit recommended for this coating
category in the draft CTG, and that each of these approaches would be
cost prohibitive. The commenter therefore argued that the VOC limit for
high performance architectural coatings recommended in the draft CTG is
not reflective of RACT for these coatings.
    We agree with the commenter that liquid high performance
architectural coatings currently available and in use today contain
significantly more than 3.5 lb VOC/gallon. We believe that the cost of
converting to powder coatings or installing and operating add-on
controls to meet a limit of 3.5 lb VOC/gallon generally would be
unreasonable compared to the emission reduction that would be achieved.
We further agree with the commenter that a limit of 6.2 lb VOC/gallon
can be achieved by the liquid high performance architectural coatings
currently available and in use today and that further reformulation may
not be technically feasible. In light of all of the above, we believe
that the 6.2 lb VOC/gallon limit represents RACT for high performance
architectural coatings. Accordingly, in the final CTG, we revised our
recommended VOC limit for high performance architectural coatings to be
6.2 lb/gal.
    In the draft CTG, we recommended that VOC limits for red and black
coatings used for automotive/transportation plastic parts could be 15
percent higher than for other colors. Higher limits were allowed for
red and black coatings because the organic pigments used for these
colors absorb oil and require more VOC to maintain proper coating
viscosity. Commenters requested that the same allowance should also be
made for yellow coatings since these coatings now use organic pigments
instead of inorganic pigments, and these organic pigments also absorb
oil and require more VOC to maintain proper coating viscosity. The
inorganic pigments formerly used in yellow coatings often contain
hexavalent chromium. Other environmental and worker health programs
restrict the use of hexavalent chromium in pigments because it is a
known human carcinogen, and it is being replaced with organic yellow
pigments. So as not to create a barrier to the use of organic yellow
pigments in place of hexavalent chromium, we are recommending in the
final CTG higher VOC limits for yellow coatings used for automotive/
transportation plastic parts.
    In response to comments on how to determine the VOC content of
materials, we recommend in the final CTG that the VOC content of
coatings used at miscellaneous metal and plastic part coating
facilities be determined using EPA Method 24. In addition, we recommend
that manufacturer's formulation data be accepted as an alternative to
EPA Method 24. If there is a disagreement between manufacturer's
formulation data and the results of a subsequent test, we recommend
that States use the test method results unless the facility can make a
demonstration to the States' satisfaction that the manufacturer's
formulation data are correct.

B. Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings

    In the July 2008 notice we requested comment on whether certain
materials (sealers, deadeners, transit coatings, cavity waxes, glass
bonding primers, and glass bonding adhesives) used at automobile and
light-duty truck assembly plants that were included in either the
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings categories or the
miscellaneous industrial adhesives and addressed in the respective
draft CTG should instead be included in the auto and light-duty truck
assembly coatings category and addressed in the CTG for this category.
All commenters on the draft CTG responded that recommendations for
these materials should be in the auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings category and addressed in the CTG for this category to
simplify implementation and compliance and to clarify EPA's
recommendations for these materials.
    In response to these comments, we have clarified in the final auto
and light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG that it covers the following
materials: Automobile and light-duty truck glass bonding primer,
automobile and light-duty truck adhesive, automobile and light-duty
truck cavity wax, automobile and light-duty truck sealer, automobile
and light-duty truck deadener, automobile and light-duty truck gasket/
gasket sealing material, automobile and light-duty truck underbody
coating, automobile and light-duty truck trunk interior coating,
automobile and light-duty truck bedliner, automobile and light-duty
truck weatherstrip adhesive, and automobile and light-duty truck

lubricating wax/compound. To clarify the scope of these materials, the
final CTG includes definitions for these materials. It also includes
the following recommended VOC emission limits for the application of
these materials:
     Automobile and light-duty truck glass bonding primer--900
g/l.
     Automobile and light-duty truck adhesive--250 g/l.
     Automobile and light-duty truck cavity wax--650 g/l.
     Automobile and light-duty truck sealer--650 g/l.
     Automobile and light-duty truck deadener--650 g/l.
     Automobile and light-duty truck gasket/gasket sealing
material--200 g/l.
     Automobile and light-duty truck underbody coating--650 g/
l.
     Automobile and light-duty truck trunk interior coating--
650 g/l.
     Automobile and light-duty truck bedliner--200 g/l.
     Automobile and light-duty truck weatherstrip adhesive--750
g/l.
     Automobile and light-duty truck lubricating wax/compound--
700 g/l.
    We have provided below a brief summary of our rationale for each of
these limits. As discussed in sections II.A and II.D of this notice,
similar materials are used in the production of vehicles other than
automobiles or light-duty trucks, or are related to the production of a
new automobile or new light-duty truck at a facility that is not an
automobile or light-duty truck assembly coatings facility. These
materials are included as ``motor vehicle'' materials in the
miscellaneous metal products, plastic parts coatings, or miscellaneous
industrial adhesives categories and addressed in the CTGs for those
categories. The same limits that are recommended for ``automobile and
light-duty truck'' materials in the auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings CTG are recommended for ``motor vehicle'' materials in those
CTGs, and the following rationale applies both to ``automobile and
light-duty truck'' materials and ``motor vehicle'' materials.
    The draft miscellaneous industrial adhesives CTG recommended a
material specific limit of 700 grams of VOC per liter for glass bonding
primer (referred to as ``automotive glass adhesive primer'' in that
document). Commenters indicated that currently used materials contain
up to 900 grams of VOC per liter. Eliminating the use of the materials
in the 700 to 900 grams of VOC per liter range may not be technically
feasible. The cost of the testing required to confirm material
performance and compliance with Federal crash safety standards and
windshield integrity requirements would be unreasonable compared to the
small emission reduction that would be achieved. As a result, we
conclude that the 900 grams of VOC per liter limit recommended in the
final CTG is representative of RACT for automobile and light-duty truck
glass bonding primer.
    The draft CTGs for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings
and for miscellaneous industrial adhesives did not have product
specific recommendations for automobile and light-duty truck adhesive,
automobile and light-duty truck cavity wax, automobile and light-duty
truck sealer, automobile and light-duty truck deadener, automobile and
light-duty truck gasket/gasket sealing material, automobile and light-
duty truck underbody coating, automobile and light-duty truck trunk
interior coating, automobile and light-duty truck weatherstrip
adhesive, or automobile and light-duty truck lubricating wax/compound.
Rather, these materials fell under general product categories in these
draft CTGs. For each of these types of materials, commenters provided
information on the VOC content of the materials currently in use and
asserted that the cost of the testing required to confirm the
performance of lower VOC content materials would be unreasonable
compared to the small emission reduction that would be achieved. We
agree with the commenter's assertion and conclude that the limits
recommended for these materials in the final CTG are representative of
RACT.
    Bedliner is an air dried multi-component coating typically applied
by vehicle dealers or aftermarket applicators. In the draft CTG for
miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coatings, bedliner would have
fallen under the general multi-component coating category which had a
recommended limit of 340 grams of VOC per liter. One commenter
indicated that bedliner is applied at some of its automobile and light-
duty truck assembly plants. We are not aware of any other automobile
and light-duty truck assembly plants that apply bedliner. The bedliner
applied at the commenter's plants contains less than 200 grams of VOC
per liter. This is similar to the VOC content of aftermarket bedliner
in the miscellaneous metal products, or plastic parts coatings
categories and addressed in the CTG for miscellaneous metal and plastic
parts coatings. As a result, we conclude that the 200 grams of VOC per
liter limit recommended in the final CTG for auto and light-duty truck
assembly coatings is representative of RACT for automobile and light-
duty truck bedliner.
    We also revised the final auto and light-duty truck assembly
coatings CTG to recommend not applying the recommended limits to
materials that are supplied to the automobile and light-duty truck
assembly plants in containers with a net volume of 16 ounces or less,
or a net weight of one pound or less. We made this change in response
to comments that these low volume materials have small VOC emissions
and the cost of controlling them outweighs the emission reductions that
could be achieved. We agree with this assessment.
    In response to comments on how to determine the VOC content of
materials, we recommend in the final CTG that the VOC content of
coatings, other than reactive adhesives, used at automobile and light-
duty truck assembly plants be determined using EPA Method 24. We
recommend that the procedure for reactive adhesives in Appendix A of
the NESHAP for surface coating of plastic parts (40 CFR Part 63,
subpart PPPP) be used to determine the VOC content of reactive
adhesives. In addition, we recommend that manufacturer's formulation
data be accepted as an alternative to these methods. If there is a
disagreement between manufacturer's formulation data and the results of
a subsequent test, we recommend that States use the test method results
unless the facility can make a demonstration to the States'
satisfaction that the manufacturer's formulation data are correct.
    Finally, in conjunction with the draft CTG we prepared a draft
revision of the Automobile Topcoat Protocol. Commenters supported the
revision of the protocol. We are issuing the final revised protocol
concurrent with the final CTG.

C. Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials

    In response to public comments, several changes were made to the
final CTG to clarify the recommended control measures. We clarified
that certain non-atomizing resin application technologies, such as
fluid impingement technology, meet the recommended resin application
equipment specifications under certain recommended compliance options.
We also revised the description of ``hand application'' to include non-
spray and non-atomizing application methods similar to hand- or
mechanically-powered caulking guns (e.g., similar to those used to
apply bonding putty), brush, and direct hand application.

These are low-emission application methods used by many boat builders.
    In the final CTG, we clarified that polyester bonding putties are
included in the fiberglass boat manufacturing materials category and
addressed in the final CTG for this category. We explained that these
putties, which are made from a mixture of resin and filler, are not
considered adhesives since they are part of the composite structure.
However, no VOC content limits are recommended for polyester bonding
putties in the final fiberglass boat manufacturing CTG, but we do
recommend covers for mixing containers used to prepare these putties.
Because these putties are encapsulated between the parts or surfaces
they are bonding, minimal area is exposed to the air and most of the
styrene is incorporated into the cured resin matrix. Therefore, VOC
emissions from these putties are inherently low. For this reason,
polyester bonding putties are not subject to HAP limits, which are
based on styrene and methyl methacrylate (MMA) emissions in the Boat
Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV. Similarly, no VOC
content limits are recommended for these materials in the final CTG,
but covers are recommended for the putty mixing containers.
    The final CTG also does not include recommended VOC limits for
resin and gel coat used for mold and part touch up and repair. No VOC
limits are recommended because these materials are used in small
volumes (e.g., just an ounce or two at a time); therefore, VOC
emissions from these materials are quite low. Further, these materials
need to have higher VOC contents so that the repairs will bond to the
existing mold or part. For these reasons, resin and gel coat used for
mold and part touch up and repair are not subject to HAP content limits
in the boat manufacturing NESHAP; however, under the NESHAP, they are
subject to a usage limit and must not account for more than 1 percent
of the total resin and gel coat used at a facility. Similarly, no VOC
limits are recommended for these materials in the final CTG, but we are
also recommending that resin and gel coat used for mold and part touch
up and repair not exceed 1 percent by weight of all resin and gel coat
used at a facility on a 12-month rolling-average basis.
    In response to public comments, we are revising the VOC content
limits for resins and gel coats such that they now consist of a monomer
VOC content limit and a limit on the non-monomer VOC content. We
received comments that compliance with our recommended VOC limits,
which were equal to the HAP content limits in the NESHAP, may not be
feasible because the VOC content in resins and gel coats may be greater
than the HAP content. As previously explained in the draft CTG, the
NESHAP HAP content limits were based on styrene and MMA contents in
resins and gel coats. Because nearly all VOC in resins and gel coats
used in fiberglass boat manufacturing are styrene and MMA, we
recommended the NESHAP HAP content limits as the VOC limits in the
draft CTG. However, commenters noted that the VOC content of resins and
gel coats may exceed the HAP content since these materials may include
a small percent of non-HAP VOC, about 0.5 to 5 percent of the total
weight of the resin or gel coat. Therefore, it may not be feasible for
some materials to achieve the recommended VOC limits in the draft CTG,
which only accounted for styrene and MMA.
    To resolve this issue, the final CTG recommends a control option to
address all VOC in these materials based on monomer VOC and non-monomer
VOC. Monomer VOCs react in a chemical cross linking reaction to convert
these materials from liquids to solids. The only monomer VOCs in these
materials that we have identified are styrene and MMA. According to the
commenters, other VOC that are not monomers may be present in these
materials at 0.5 to 5 percent by weight of the resin and gel coat. In
light of the above information, we recommend in the final CTG that
States adopt the HAP content limits in the NESHAP as monomer VOC
content limits. In addition, we recommend that the States limit the
non-monomer VOC content of resins and gel coats to 5 percent by weight
of the resin or gel coat. If the non-monomer VOC content exceeds 5
percent, we recommend that the amount over 5 percent be counted toward
the monomer VOC content of the material. For example, if a resin
contained 34 percent monomer VOC, but 6 percent non-monomer VOC, then
the resin would be treated in each recommended compliance option as if
it had a monomer VOC content of 35 percent because of the 1 percent
non-monomer VOC that was over the 5 percent recommended limit for non-
monomer VOC.
    In response to comments on how to determine the VOC content of
materials, we recommend in the final CTG that the monomer VOC content
of resin and gel coat materials be determined using SCAQMD Method 312-
91, Determination of Percent Monomer in Polyester Resins. In addition,
we recommend that manufacturer's formulation data be accepted as an
alternative to this method. If there is a disagreement between
manufacturer's formulation data and the results of a subsequent test,
we recommend that States use the test method results unless the
facility can make a demonstration to the States' satisfaction that the
manufacturer's formulation data are correct.

D. Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

    We revised the final CTG to recommend not applying the recommended
limits to materials that are supplied to the facilities operating
miscellaneous industrial adhesive application processes in containers
with a net volume of 16 ounces or less, or a net weight of one pound or
less. We made this change in response to comments that these low volume
materials have small VOC emissions and the cost of controlling them
outweighs the emission reductions that could be achieved. We agree with
this assessment. This is also consistent with the small container
exemption in the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rule.
    In response to comments on how to determine the VOC content of
materials, we recommend in the final CTG that the VOC content of
adhesives, other than reactive adhesives, used at facilities operating
miscellaneous industrial adhesive application processes be determined
using EPA Method 24. We recommend that the procedure for reactive
adhesives in Appendix A of the NESHAP for surface coating of plastic
parts (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP) be used to determine the VOC
content of reactive adhesives. In addition, we recommend that
manufacturer's formulation data be accepted as an alternative to these
methods. If there is a disagreement between manufacturer's formulation
data and the results of a subsequent test, we recommend that States use
the test method results unless the facility can make a demonstration to
the States' satisfaction that the manufacturer's formulation data are
correct.
    We also clarified in the final CTG that polyester bonding putties
used to assemble fiberglass parts at fiberglass boat manufacturing
facilities and at other reinforced plastic composite manufacturing
facilities are not included in the miscellaneous industrial adhesives
category and are not addressed in the CTG for this category. These
bonding putties are part of the composite structure and are not
adhesives. For further discussions on these putties, please see section
II.C of

this notice and the final fiberglass boat manufacturing materials CTG.
    In the final miscellaneous industrial adhesives CTG, we also
revised the definition of porous material to exclude wood. In the draft
CTG, we recommended separate emission limits for wood application
processes and for porous material (except wood) application processes.
However, we inadvertently included wood in the definition of porous
material in the draft CTG. This was an oversight, and wood has been
excluded from the definition of porous material in the final CTG.
    We also replaced the term ``tire retreading'' in the CTG with
``tire repair''. This change was made in response to a comment that the
OTC model rule, on which the CTG definition was based, uses the term
``tire repair'' for the same definition. We made this change to be
consistent with the OTC model rule and to more accurately describe the
specific process being defined.
    In the draft CTG we requested comment on whether certain materials
(glass bonding primers and glass bonding adhesives) used at automobile
and light-duty truck assembly plants that were included in the
miscellaneous industrial adhesives category and addressed in the draft
CTG for miscellaneous industrial adhesives should instead be included
in the auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings category and
addressed in the CTG for that category. All commenters on the draft CTG
responded that recommendations for these materials should be in the
auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings category and addressed in
the CTG for that category to simplify implementation and compliance and
to clarify EPA's recommendations for these materials.
    In response to these comments, we have clarified in the final auto
and light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG that it covers the following
materials: automobile and light-duty truck glass bonding primer,
automobile and light-duty truck adhesive, and automobile and light-duty
truck weatherstrip adhesive. For further discussion on how we address
these materials, please see section II.B of this notice and the final
auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings CTG.
    Similar materials are used in the production of vehicles other than
automobiles or light-duty trucks, or are related to the production of a
new automobile or new light-duty truck at a facility that is not an
automobile or light-duty truck assembly coatings facility. These
materials are included as ``motor vehicle'' materials in the
miscellaneous industrial adhesives category and addressed in the final
CTG for this category. The same limits that are recommended for
``automobile and light-duty truck'' materials in the auto and light-
duty truck assembly coatings CTG are recommended for ``motor vehicle''
materials in this CTG. Please see section II.B of this notice for the
rationale for these recommended limits.
    The recommended VOC emission limits in the final miscellaneous
industrial adhesives CTG for the motor vehicle materials described
above are as follows:
     Motor vehicle glass bonding primer--900 g/l.
     Motor vehicle adhesive--250 g/l.
     Motor vehicle weatherstrip adhesive--750 g/l.
    Please note that, in the final CTG, the term ``motor vehicle glass
bonding primer'' replaces the term ``automotive glass adhesive primer''
provided in the draft CTG. The terms have the same definition, but
``glass bonding primer'' is the term more commonly used in the
automotive and motor vehicle industry.

III. Responses to Significant Comments on EPA's Determination

    All commenters that addressed EPA's proposed CAA Section
183(e)(3)(C) determination that CTGs will be substantially as effective
as national regulations in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone
nonattainment areas from the miscellaneous metal products coatings,
plastic parts coatings, auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings,
and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials product categories agreed
with the proposed determination.
    In support of EPA's proposed determination and issuance of draft
CTGs for these product categories, commenters remarked that the CTG
approach would afford industry flexibility to achieve VOC emission
reductions while not compromising their ability to meet customer needs.
We received comments noting that the CTG approach allows States greater
flexibility to tailor regulatory requirements to their specific
circumstances. The commenter stated that site-specific factors
necessitate the need for flexible controls. According to the
commenters, because there can be great variation in the operations of
facilities and the environmental conditions in which they operate,
State regulators should be granted some latitude to fashion control
strategies to address the variables that are inherent to the formation
of ground-level ozone in their States. The commenters concluded that
the CTG approach affords this flexibility by allowing the use of a
variety of mechanisms to achieve emission reductions.
    With respect to the miscellaneous industrial adhesives category, we
similarly received comments agreeing with EPA's determination that a
CTG is substantially as effective as a rule. However, we also received
comments supporting the issuance of a national rule rather than a CTG
for this product category. These commenters raised no concerns or
issues with EPA's rationales for its proposed determination that a CTG
is substantially as effective as a rule in reducing VOC emissions from
miscellaneous industrial adhesives in ozone nonattainment areas.
Rather, the commenters explained that regulation of manufacturers of
industrial adhesives would cover a wider variety of materials, and thus
achieve greater VOC emissions reductions, than measures limiting
emissions from the products at the point of use. The commenters further
argued that manufacturers have greater control over the VOC content and
associated emissions of industrial adhesives than do users, given that
individual industrial adhesives are formulated to perform specific
functions and, unlike other coating materials, are not ordinarily
thinned or otherwise altered prior to use by the user. The commenters
stated that, among the categories of adhesive materials covered in the
proposed CTG, a number of them are more likely to be used ``in the
field'' or at construction sites rather than in manufacturing
facilities. One commenter added that any uncertainty regarding the
industry sectors that are covered by the miscellaneous industrial
adhesives source category would be resolved by regulating industrial
adhesives at the point of manufacture rather than the point of use. The
commenter expressed concern that a CTG for adhesives would require
enforcement at innumerable manufacturing facilities nationwide,
resulting in significant costs. The commenter added that in contrast, a
national rule applicable to manufacturers of industrial adhesives would
greatly reduce the number of regulated entities and simplify
enforcement, and reduce costs.
    EPA appreciates the commenters' concerns and suggestions. However,
for the following reasons, EPA rejects the commenters' suggestion that
EPA should issue a national rule for the Section 183(e) miscellaneous
industrial adhesives category. As an initial matter, the scope of
adhesives that the commenters suggest that EPA cover under a national
rule is broader than the Section 183(e) miscellaneous industrial
adhesives category. In EPA's Report to

Congress, Study of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer
and Commercial Products--Comprehensive Emissions Inventory (EPA-453/R-
94-066-B, March 1995), supporting the Section 183(e) consumer and
commercial product category list that EPA compiled in 1995 and the
schedule for taking action on the listed product categories,\8\ the
``miscellaneous industrial adhesives'' product category was clearly
described as comprising adhesives used in industrial manufacturing
operations. Accordingly, this product category does not include field-
applied adhesives (e.g., plastic solvent welding cements used by
plumbers to join plumbing pipes on construction jobs in the field).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ``Consumer and Commercial Products: Schedule for
Regulation'' (60 FR 15264, March 23, 1995)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the July 2008 notice, EPA proposed to finalize the miscellaneous
industrial adhesives product category, as that category was listed in
1995. EPA did not propose to broaden that product category, as EPA had
determined that the category properly reflected the scope of sources
needed, in conjunction with the other product categories, to meet the
requirements of Section 183(e)(3)(A). Petitioners have not alleged or
demonstrated that EPA's proposed listing is contrary to the
requirements of Section 183(e)(3)(A). EPA therefore takes final action
to list the miscellaneous industrial adhesives product category, which
again includes those adhesives used in industrial manufacturing
operations.
    Further, as discussed in the July 14, 2008 notice, the effect of a
national rule that sets VOC limits only for miscellaneous industrial
adhesives (i.e., adhesives used in industrial manufacturing operations)
could be easily subverted because such a rule could not require that a
manufacturing facility use only those low-VOC content adhesives
materials that are specifically marketed for miscellaneous industrial
adhesive application operations. By contrast, the miscellaneous
industrial adhesives CTG applies specifically to the products in the
Section 183(e) miscellaneous industrial adhesives category, i.e.,
adhesives used at industrial manufacturing operations.
    Moreover, as discussed above and in the July 14, 2008 notice, EPA
has identified in the CTG flexible and effective options for
controlling VOC emissions from the miscellaneous industrial adhesives
category, and these recommended control options are consistent with
existing State and local VOC control strategies. The recommended
control options, which are directed at the use of these adhesives, can
only be implemented through the CTG approach because the regulated
entities subject to a national rule would be adhesives manufacturers
and suppliers, not the users. The commenters have raised no concerns or
issues with EPA's rationales, including those reiterated above,
supporting its proposed Section 183(e)(3)(C) determination that a CTG
is substantially as effective as a regulation in reducing VOC emissions
from miscellaneous industrial adhesives in ozone nonattainment areas.
For the foregoing reasons, EPA is finalizing its 183(e)(3)(C)
determination for miscellaneous industrial adhesives in this notice.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a
``significant regulatory action,'' since it is deemed to raise novel
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866, and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action does not contain any
information collection requirements.

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 impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. EPA is taking
final action to list the five Group IV consumer and commercial product
categories addressed in this notice for purposes of CAA Section 183(e).
The listing action alone does not impose any regulatory requirements.
EPA has also determined that, for each of the five product categories
at issue, a CTG will be substantially as effective as a national
regulation in achieving VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment
areas. This final determination means that EPA has concluded that it is
not appropriate to issue Federal regulations under CAA Section 183(e)
to regulate VOC emissions from these five product categories. Instead,
EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to issue guidance in the form
of CTGs that provide recommendations to States concerning potential
methods to achieve needed VOC emission reductions from these product
categories. In addition to the final determination, EPA is also
announcing availability of the final CTGs for these five product
categories. These CTGs are guidance documents. EPA does not directly
regulate any small entities through the issuance of a CTG. Instead, EPA
issues CTGs to provide States with guidance on developing appropriate
State regulations to obtain VOC emission reductions from the affected
sources within certain nonattainment areas. EPA's issuance of a CTG
does trigger an obligation on the part of certain States to issue State
regulations, but States are not obligated to issue regulations
identical to the EPA's CTG. States may follow the recommendations in
the CTG or deviate from them, and the ultimate determination of whether
a State regulation meets the RACT requirements of the CAA would be
determined through notice and comment rulemaking in the EPA's action on
each State's SIP. Thus, States retain discretion in determining to what
degree to follow the CTGs.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-

1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector
because it imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal
governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. In
addition, we have determined that this rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. As stated in section IV.C. this action serves to list five
product categories, finalize a determination that a CTG will be
substantially as effective as a national regulation in achieving VOC
emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas for the five
categories, and announce the availability of the final CTGs (i.e.,
guidance documents) for these five product categories. These actions do
not impose any regulatory requirements; therefore, EPA is not directly
regulating any small entities. Please refer to section IV.C. for
additional details.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EO 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'' is defined in the EO 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.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
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,
as specified in EO 13132. The CAA establishes the relationship between
the Federal Government and the States, and this action does not impact
that relationship. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this rule. However,
in the spirit of EO 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
solicited comments (see 73 FR 40230, July 14, 2008) from State and
local officials. EPA received no adverse comments from State or local
governments on these issues.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in EO
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, in that the listing action
and the final determination impose no regulatory burdens on tribes.
Furthermore, the listing action and the final determination do not
affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The CAA and the
Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) establish the relationship of the Federal
government and Tribes in implementing the CAA. Thus, EO 13175 does not
apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that are based on health and safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO
has the potential to influence the regulations. This rule is not
subject to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology
performance.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in EO
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. These actions impose no regulatory requirements and are
therefore not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when the Agency
does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive
policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any populations, including any minority or
low-income populations. The purpose of CAA Section 183(e) is to obtain
VOC emission reductions to assist in the attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
The health and environmental risks associated with ozone were
considered in the establishment of the ozone NAAQS. The level is
designed to be protective of the public with an adequate margin of
safety. EPA's listing of the products and its determination that CTGs
are substantially as effective as regulations are actions intended to
help States achieve the NAAQS in the most appropriate fashion.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this notice and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the notice in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective October 7, 2008.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59

    Air pollution control, Consumer and commercial products,
Confidential business information, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 30, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 59--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 59 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 7511b(e).

Subpart A--General

0
2. Section 59.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  59.1  Final determinations under Section 183(e)(3)(C) of the CAA.

    This section identifies the consumer and commercial product
categories for which EPA has determined that CTGs will be substantially
as effective as regulations in reducing VOC emissions in ozone
nonattainment areas:
    (a) Wood furniture coatings;
    (b) Aerospace coatings;
    (c) Shipbuilding and repair coatings;
    (d) Lithographic printing materials;
    (e) Letterpress printing materials;
    (f) Flexible packaging printing materials;
    (g) Flat wood paneling coatings;
    (h) Industrial cleaning solvents;
    (i) Paper, film, and foil coatings;
    (j) Metal furniture coatings;
    (k) Large appliance coatings;
    (l) Miscellaneous metal products coatings;
    (m) Plastic parts coatings;
    (n) Auto and light-duty truck assembly coatings;
    (o) Fiberglass boat manufacturing materials; and
    (p) Miscellaneous industrial adhesives.

[FR Doc. E8-23750 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44607-44608]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16168]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-4-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review of the Orion Project

    On October 9, 2015, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
(Tennessee) filed an application in Docket No. CP16-4-000 requesting a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural
gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Orion
Project (Project), and would deliver an additional 135,000 dekatherms
per day of natural gas to meet needs of three contracted shippers in
the northeast United States.
    On October 26, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's

planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

    Issuance of EA--August 23, 2016.

    90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--November 21, 2016.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    Tennessee proposes to construct and operate pipeline facilities,
modify existing aboveground facilities, and add new tie-in facilities
in Wayne and Pike Counties, Pennsylvania.
    The Project would consist of the following facilities:
     Approximately 12.9 miles of new 36-inch-diameter looping
\1\ pipeline in Wayne and Pike Counties, Pennsylvania;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pipeline loop is a segment of pipe constructed parallel to
an existing pipeline to increase capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a new internal pipeline inspection (``pig'') \2\ launcher,
crossover, and connecting facilities at the beginning of the proposed
pipeline loop in Wayne County;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline,
conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a new pig receiver, crossover, and connecting facilities
at the end of the proposed pipeline loop in Pike County; and
     modifications at Tennessee's existing Compressor Station
323, including rewheeling/restaging of an existing compressor and other
piping and appurtenant modifications.

Background

    On November 23, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Orion Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). On December 3,
2015, the Commission issued a supplemental NOI extending the scoping
period for the Project. The NOI and supplemental NOI were sent to
affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and
newspapers. In response to the NOIs, the Commission received comments
from the National Park Service and several individuals. The comments
primarily concerned impacts on water resources, land use, recreation,
air quality, and reliability and safety.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and ``Docket Number'' excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP16-4), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to
eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY (202) 502-
8659, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC
Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued
by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: June 30, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16168 Filed 7-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 9887]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03326]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88197; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-92]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Adopt NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E To Permit the Listing and
Trading of Managed Portfolio Securities and To List and Trade Four
Series of Managed Portfolio Securities Issued by T. Rowe Price
Exchange-Traded Funds, Inc. Under Proposed NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E

February 13, 2020.
    On December 23, 2019, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to (1) adopt proposed NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E to
permit the Exchange to list and trade Managed Portfolio Securities,
which are shares of an actively managed exchange-traded fund for which
the portfolio is disclosed quarterly; and (2) list and trade the
following Managed Portfolio Securities under proposed NYSE Arca Rule
8.601-E: T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF, T. Rowe Price Dividend
Growth ETF, T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF, and T. Rowe Price Equity
Income ETF. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on January 3, 2020.\3\ The Commission has received no
comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87865 (December 30,
2019), 85 FR 380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is February 17, 2020. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
April 2, 2020 as the date by which the Commission shall either approve
or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR- NYSEArca-2019-92).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03326 Filed 2-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21996-21998]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08854]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0299; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2011-0380]

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
16 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 May 11, 2014. Comments must be
received on or before May 19, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2011-
0299; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2011-0380], 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.
    Instructions: 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 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: 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 DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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 16 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 16 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Robert J. Ambrose (MA)
Robert L. Brauns (IA)
Bobby R. Brooks (GA)
Melvin D. Clark (GA)
Clifford W. Doran, Jr. (NC)
Ryan C. Dugan (NY)
Rojelio Garcia-Pena (MI)
Glenn C. Grimm (NJ)
Charles J. Kennedy (OH)
Ronnie D. Ownes (MO)
Richard A. Pucker (WI)
John M. Riley (AL)
Jeffery A. Sheets (AR)
Randy L. Stevens (GA)
Wade W. Ward (WY)
Jimmy S. Zamora, Jr. (TX)

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements 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 provides 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 retains 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 16 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (76 FR 73769; 77 FR 3547; 77 FR 15184; 77 FR 17109; 77 FR
27845; 77 FR 27850). Each of these 16 applicants has requested renewal
of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement 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 requirements.
    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 May 19, 2014.
    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 16 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 made on the merits of each
case and made 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.

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 numbers FMCSA-2011-0299; FMCSA-
2011-0379; FMCSA-2011-0380 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 material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble. To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
FMCSA-2011-0299; FMCSA-2011-0379; FMCSA-2011-0380 and click ``Search.''
Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and
comments related to the proposed rulemaking.

    Issued on: April 9, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-08854 Filed 4-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P