[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16251]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 16 and 121

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1563]

Appendix 4 To Draft Qualitative Risk Assessment of Risk of
Activity/Food Combinations for Activities (Outside the Farm Definition)
Conducted in a Facility Co-Located on a Farm; Extension of Comment
Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the
comment period for a document that appeared in the Federal Register of
December 24, 2013 (78 FR 78064), entitled ``Appendix 4 to Draft
Qualitative Risk Assessment of Risk of Activity/Food Combinations for
Activities (Outside the Farm Definition) Conducted in a Facility Co-
Located on a Farm'' (draft RA Appendix) to June 30, 2014. We are taking
this action to keep the comment period for the draft RA Appendix
consistent with the comment period for the proposed rule.

DATES: FDA is extending the comment period on the draft RA Appendix.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed rule and
the information collection by June 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written comments to Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305),
Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Newkirk, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch
Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of December 24, 2013, we published a
document entitled ``Appendix 4 to Draft Qualitative Risk Assessment of
Risk of Activity/Food Combinations for Activities (Outside the Farm
Definition) Conducted in a Facility Co-Located on a Farm'' (the draft
RA Appendix) with a 100-day comment period on the provisions of the
proposed rule.
    FDA has received requests for an extension of the comment period on
the proposed rule entitled ``Focused Mitigation Strategies to Protect
Food Against Intentional Adulteration'' (78 FR 78014). This document
directly relates to the proposal. The requests conveyed concern that
the current 100-day comment period does not allow time to thoroughly
analyze the proposal, due to the inherent complexity and unique nature
of food defense issues. FDA has considered the requests and is granting
an extension of the comment period to June 30, 2014, for the draft RA
Appendix to allow interested persons additional time to submit
comments. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we are also
extending the comment period for the proposed rule ``Focused Mitigation
Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration.'' To
clarify, FDA is requesting comment on all issues raised by the
document.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
the proposed rule to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to
the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only
necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to
the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 20, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-06469 Filed 3-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43483-43489]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14535]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2023-0188; FRL-11025-01-R1]

Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Reasonably Available Control
Technology for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of New Hampshire. These revisions provide certifications that the
State has adopted regulations meeting the requirements for reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). We are also proposing
approval of amendments to a related regulation that New Hampshire
revised as part of its RACT certifications for these two NAAQS, a
revision to the State's definition of emergency generator, and removal
from the SIP of two previously issued RACT orders. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 9, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2023-0188 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to:
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional

Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and facility closures due
to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air and Radiation Division (Mail Code 5-MD), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
Massachusetts 02109-3912;<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Description and Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Submittals
    1. RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone NAAQS
    a. Description of RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015
Ozone Standards
    b. Evaluation of RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone
Standards
    2. Update to NOX RACT Regulation
    3. Update to Definition of Emergency Generator
    4. Withdrawal of RACT Orders Issued to Public Service of New
Hampshire
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require
States to implement RACT in areas classified as Moderate (and higher)
non-attainment for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA
requires RACT in States located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).
Specifically, these areas are required to implement RACT for all major
emission sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and for all sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guideline (CTG). A CTG is a document issued by EPA which
provides guidance to States when determining RACT for specific VOC
sources. A related set of documents, Alternative Control Techniques
(ACT), exists primarily for NOX control requirements. States
must submit RACT rules for sources covered by CTGs, or negative
declarations when no such sources exist for a CTG, but negative
declarations are not required for sources in ACT categories. However,
RACT must be imposed on major sources of NOX, and some of
those major sources may be within a category covered by an ACT
document.
    In 2008, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS, or standards) for ozone, setting it at 0.075 parts
per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA determined
that the revised 8-hour standard would be more protective of human
health, especially with regard to children and adults who are active
outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease such
as asthma.
    On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), EPA published a final rule that
outlined the obligations that areas found to be in nonattainment of the
2008 ozone standard needed to address. This rule, herein referred to as
the ``2008 ozone implementation rule,'' contained, among other things,
a description of EPA's expectations for States with RACT obligations.
The 2008 ozone implementation rule indicated that States could meet
RACT through the establishment of new or more stringent requirements
that meet RACT control levels, through a certification that previously
adopted RACT controls in their SIP approved by EPA under a prior ozone
NAAQS represent adequate RACT control levels for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
or with a combination of these two approaches. In addition, a State
must submit a negative declaration in instances where, for a particular
CTG, there are no sources within the State covered by that CTG. On
February 3, 2017, EPA issued findings of failure to submit for a number
of required SIP submittals for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including RACT for
States within the OTR. See 82 FR 9158. By that action, New Hampshire
received a finding of failure to submit a RACT SIP for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, which it subsequently rectified with the submittal we are
proposing approval of in this action.
    In 2015, the EPA promulgated another revision to the ozone NAAQS
(2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and
secondary standards to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292; October 26, 2015.
Subsequently, on December 6, 2018, EPA published a final rule that
outlined the obligations that States in the OTR and areas found to be
in nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS needed to address, including
similar requirements for RACT as were contained in the 2008 ozone
implementation rule. See 83 FR 62998. We herein refer to this rule as
the 2015 ozone implementation rule.
    In order to meet the RACT requirements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone
NAAQS, the New Hampshire Air Resources Division submitted a RACT
certification for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS on September 6, 2018.
Under a separate cover letter, NH also submitted on September 6, 2018,
a revision to the State's previously approved NOX RACT
regulation, Env-A 1300, and a revision to the term ``emergency
generator'' as contained within the State regulation Env-A 100,
Purpose; Definitions. New Hampshire submitted an additional amendment
to Env-A 1300 on March 28, 2023. On August 16, 2018, New Hampshire
submitted a request to remove from their SIP two RACT orders containing
requirements that were superseded by more stringent requirements
contained within the State's September 6, 2018, submittal of revised
Env-A 1300, NOX RACT.

II. Description and Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revisions

1. RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone NAAQS

a. Description of RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone
Standards
    On September 6, 2018, New Hampshire submitted a demonstration that
its set of SIP approved VOC and NOX control regulations and
single source RACT orders issued to major stationary sources meets the
criteria for RACT for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. This submittal
rectified the finding of failure to submit that EPA issued on February
3, 2017, described above. New Hampshire's RACT submittal notes that its
prior designation as a nonattainment area for the 1979 and 1997 ozone
standards resulted in the adoption of stringent controls for major
sources of VOC and NOX, including RACT level controls.
Therefore, as allowed for within the 2008 and 2015 ozone implementation
rules, much of New Hampshire's submittal consists of a review of RACT
controls adopted under previous ozone standards and an indication of
whether those previously adopted controls still represent RACT for the
2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. New Hampshire's RACT certification submittal
also notes the substantial declines in NOX and VOC emissions
from RACT sources that has occurred due to the implementation of RACT
for the prior ozone standards. For additional context, New Hampshire's
submittal notes that EPA designated all areas of the State as
unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, and that a
RACT submittal is only required pursuant to the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR) requirements of section 184(b) of the Clean Air Act. New
Hampshire's submittal also notes that VOC and NOX emissions
from sources subject to RACT have declined substantially in recent
years. For example, between 2005 and 2017, NOX emissions
from these sources declined

82%, and VOC emission declined 58%, due in part to New Hampshire's RACT
requirements for these facilities. More recently, information contained
within EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database for 2020
indicates only 1 stationary point source in New Hampshire emitted more
than 50 tons of VOC that year, and only 8 stationary point sources
emitted more than 50 tons of NOX.
    The State's September 6, 2018 submittal identifies the specific
control measures that it previously adopted to control emissions from
major sources of VOC emissions, reaffirms negative declarations for
some CTG categories, and describes updates New Hampshire made to
existing requirements to strengthen them so that they would continue to
represent RACT. Table 5-1 of New Hampshire's submittal contains a
detailed listing of the State regulations for each of the CTG and ACT
categories for which sources exist in the State. The table identifies
the specific State rule that is in place, the rule's effective date,
and the date that EPA approved the rule into the New Hampshire SIP. New
Hampshire notes that major sources of VOC and NOX are
defined, for purposes of New Hampshire's RACT regulations, as sources
with the potential to emit 50 tons per year or more of these
pollutants. For some CTG categories such as surface coating sources,
New Hampshire's rules include lower applicability thresholds consistent
with the relevant CTGs. New Hampshire's submittal includes the State's
response to EPA's issuance of new VOC RACT CTGs in 2006, 2007, and
2008, which included adoption of a number of new regulations. EPA
approved the State's SIP revisions addressing the 2006, 2007, and 2008
CTGs on November 8, 2012. See 77 FR 66921. Additionally, on December
17, 2019, New Hampshire submitted a negative declaration for a CTG that
EPA issued in 2016 regarding the oil and gas industry. EPA approved
that negative declaration on July 13, 2020. See 85 FR 41920.
    As required, New Hampshire's submittal addresses NOX
emissions as well as VOC emissions. Section 5.2 of the State's
submittal identifies the control requirement or single source Order
that sets forth RACT for major sources of NOX. Specifically,
New Hampshire notes that major sources of NOX are subject to
Env-A 1300, Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) RACT. This regulation
includes a NOX RACT emission limit applicable to municipal
waste combustors. New Hampshire reviewed Env-A 1300 and determined that
certain aspects of that regulation needed to be updated in order to
represent RACT for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. This determination
was informed by comments the State received from EPA within a letter
dated April 18, 2014. That EPA comment letter was sent in response to a
draft RACT certification SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that New
Hampshire had submitted to EPA for review. EPA's comment letter noted
that New Hampshire's draft RACT certification lacked adequate
justification as to how the State's NOX RACT regulations
represented a RACT level of control, and the correspondence also
provided information indicating that strengthening some aspects of
these regulations, in particular those limiting emissions from coal-
fired electric utility boilers and municipal waste combustors, was
likely needed in order to satisfy the State's RACT obligation. EPA's
comment letter is included in the docket for this action. Accordingly,
on September 6, 2018, New Hampshire submitted an updated version of
Env-A 1300 as a SIP revision. The updated regulation includes a
tightened NOX emission limit for incinerators which is
applicable to municipal waste combustors in the State, lower
NOX emission limits for older gas and older oil-fired
engines, and lower NOX emission limits for coal fired
utility boilers. Additionally, New Hampshire submitted updated single
source Orders containing NOX RACT requirements for the
Anheuser Busch Company and for the Schiller Station electrical
generating station.
    New Hampshire has adopted State regulations for the CTG categories
for which sources exist in the State and has reviewed and strengthened
portions of Env-A 1300, NOX RACT. In most cases New
Hampshire determined that sources already addressed by RACT
determinations for the 1-hour and/or 1997 ozone NAAQS do not need to
implement additional controls to meet the 2008 or 2015 ozone NAAQS RACT
requirement primarily because RACT for the more recent standards is the
same control technology as required by the initial RACT determination
made under the 1-hour or 1997 standard because the fundamental control
techniques, as described in the CTGs and ACTs, are still what is
reasonably available. New Hampshire did not receive any comments during
the public hearing process disagreeing with the State's conclusion that
it has adopted regulations governing major sources of VOC and
NOX that constitute RACT.
    New Hampshire's review of its control program for major sources of
VOC and NOX thus concludes that upon completion of its
intended updates to Env-A 1300 and submittal of the single source
NOX RACT Orders mentioned above, all major sources in the
State will be meeting the RACT requirements of the 2008 and 2015 ozone
standards.
b. Evaluation of RACT Certifications for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone
Standards
    EPA has reviewed New Hampshire's determination that it has adopted
VOC and NOX control regulations for stationary sources that
constitute RACT and proposes to determine that the set of regulations
cited by the State within its September 6, 2018, certification SIP
submittals, along with the strengthening of the requirements contained
in Env-A 1300, the State's NOX control regulation,
constitute RACT for purposes of the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards.
EPA's evaluation is explained in more detail below and is also
explained within a Technical Support Document (TSD) that can be found
in the docket for this action.
    New Hampshire's RACT certification submittal documents the State's
VOC and NOX control regulations that have been adopted to
ensure that RACT level controls are required in the State. These
requirements include regulations within Env-A, Rules Governing the
Control of Air Pollution. Specifically, within New Hampshire's VOC RACT
regulation, Env-A 1200, the State has adopted regulations limiting VOC
emissions from sectors represented by 23 of EPA's CTGs, including the
CTGs EPA adopted in 2006, 2007, and 2008. These are the CTGs for which
the State has covered sources. EPA's analysis for these CTGs is
explained more below and also within the TSD. Further, New Hampshire's
submittal includes Table 5-3 listing negative declarations for the
other CTGs where the state determined that no covered sources are
located within its borders. To evaluate these negative declarations,
EPA reviewed facility location data by industry type using information
from the North American Industry Classification System. Based on that
review, EPA agrees with the State's conclusion regarding which CTGs
negative declarations are appropriate for.
    Next, New Hampshire's RACT certification notes that the State has
adopted numerous single source RACT Orders for major sources of VOC and
NOX, and that these Orders have been submitted to EPA and
incorporated into the SIP. The sources covered by these orders must
submit a detailed evaluation of the economic and technical feasibility
of the VOC or NOX control options that were evaluated, the
control option selected and the corresponding emissions limit, and the
monitoring technique and/or test

method that will be used to demonstrate compliance for the State to
review. Prior to issuing a RACT determination for the source, New
Hampshire submits a draft RACT Order to the EPA's Region 1 office for
review and comment, after which the draft order undergoes a 30-day
public comment period. After considering any comments received during
the public hearing process, the State issues a final RACT Order to the
facility and subsequently submits it to EPA for incorporation into the
New Hampshire SIP.
    As part of the development of its RACT certifications, New
Hampshire evaluated all previously issued VOC and NOX RACT
Orders based on the State's review of available control options
implemented at other facilities within the State and comparable RACT
emissions limits required by other States. The results of this review
are chronicled within Tables 5-2 and 5-5 of the State's submittal, and
the tables include a column explaining the results of the State's
review. Orders that the State determined did not satisfy the RACT
requirement, such as the Orders previously issued to Anheuser Busch and
Schiller Station, were revised and submitted to EPA for incorporation
into the New Hampshire SIP, which EPA accomplished via a final rule
published in the Federal Register on September 12, 2019 (84 FR 48068).
EPA reviewed the States documentation of its review of RACT Orders, and
also performed its own review of a number of orders that the State did
not update, and agree with the State's determination that these orders
represent a RACT level of control. For example, the VOC RACT orders for
Teleflex Medical and the Textile Tapes Corporation indicate that both
companies control VOC emissions to a minimum of 81% control efficiency
by operation of a thermal oxidizer, which is the control level
recommended in EPA's model VOC RACT rules for non-CTG sources that
control emissions by an alternative to what is otherwise required by
regulation. Other States, Delaware for example, require this same level
of control in such situation.\1\ EPA has reviewed and agrees with New
Hampshire's assessment that its RACT Orders sufficiently demonstrate a
RACT level of control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example, Appendix A of Delaware's regulation 1124,
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, at section 10.5,
Control Devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our most recent prior approval of a RACT certification SIP for New
Hampshire occurred on November 5, 2012, (77 FR 66388) for the 1997
ozone standard. Since then, EPA has approved numerous revisions to New
Hampshire's RACT requirements that further limited VOC and
NOX emissions. These revisions include updates the State
made to its VOC RACT regulation to address the CTGs issued by EPA in
2006, 2007, 2008, and 2016 (see 77 FR 66922, and 85 FR 41920), and
minor updates to the State's NOX RACT requirements (see 79
FR 49458).\2\ Additionally, New Hampshire submitted and EPA approved
single source Orders for the following facilities subsequent to EPA's
last RACT certification approval: Mectrol Corporation (see 77 FR
66388); Concord Litho, Sturm-Ruger, Gorham Paper, and Textile Tapes
(see 79 FR 49458); Parker Hannifin Corporation, Watts Regulator,
Textile Tapes, amended Order (see 81 FR 59139); Sturm-Ruger, amended
Order (see 83 FR 13668), and; Diacom Corporation (see 83 FR 45356).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ New Hampshire has made more significant revisions to its
NOX RACT regulation that we are proposing to approve as
discussed is section II.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further analyze whether New Hampshire's VOC control regulations
for sources covered by CTGs meet the RACT obligation, EPA reviewed
those regulations and compared them to other resources. Those resources
include control strategies adopted by two similar neighboring States,
Maine and Vermont, which are also attainment areas that implement RACT
due to their inclusion in the OTR, measures described in the RACT/BACT/
LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC), EPA's Menu of Control Measures, and federal
regulations found in 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 (New Source Performance
Standards and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants). EPA's RBLC contains case-specific information on air
pollution technologies that have been required by State and local
permitting agencies to reduce air pollution from stationary sources and
was designed to help with the air permitting process. The Menu of
Control Measures provides State, local, and Tribal air agencies with
information on existing emissions reduction measures, as well as
relevant information concerning the efficiency and cost effectiveness
of the measures. The results of EPA's analysis are summarized within
the TSD prepared for this action and included in the docket.
Additionally, for informational purposes and context, a technical
supplement New Hampshire provided to its RACT certifications that is
included within the docket provides information regarding aspects of
the State's VOC regulations that contain requirements more stringent
than what is found within EPA's CTGs for wood furniture manufacturing,
graphic arts, bulk gasoline plants, and cutback and emulsified asphalt
application.\3\ For example, New Hampshire requires a control
efficiency of between 75 to 80% for control equipment used to reduce
emissions from rotogravure printing operations, whereas the comparable
requirement from EPA's CTG is 65 to 70%. Based on EPA's review, we are
proposing to find that New Hampshire's VOC requirements for sources
covered by CTGs, where such sources exist within the State, adequately
establish RACT. Although there are some differences amongst the State
regulations, for example, regarding applicability criteria, work
practice standards inspection frequency and other matters, these
differences did not impact EPA's conclusions regarding New Hampshire's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See RACT Certification: Follow-up to NH's Submission on
September 6, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Env-A 1222, Miscellaneous and Multicategory Stationary
VOC Sources, facilities with the potential to emit 50 tons or more from
activities that don't fit into a CTG category but are able to meet the
default control options within that regulation are governed by the
control options within it, such as, for example, achievement of an 81%
overall control efficiency for add-on equipment as recommended within
EPA's model VOC RACT rules for non-CTG sources. EPA reviewed the
control options within Env-A 1222 and agree that they continue to
represent RACT.
    Next, New Hampshire recently re-evaluated its NOX RACT
regulation and determined that a number of NOX requirements,
as described below, should be updated to be consistent with
requirements in other States. The updates New Hampshire made to its
NOX RACT regulation resulted in the development of tighter
NOX limits for municipal waste combustors (MWCs), lower
NOX emissions limits for oil and gas fired engines, and
lower NOX limits for coal fired boilers. New Hampshire's SIP
submittal further indicates some portions of Env-A 1300 were not
revised, and the State provided its rationale for not revising these
sections in the technical supplement to the original submittal
mentioned above. New Hampshire determined that portions of Env-A 1300
pertaining to asphalt plant rotary dryers, wallboard manufacturing
facilities, auxiliary boilers, and miscellaneous sources did not need
revision based on its review of various factors as noted within the

supplement. For example, there are no longer any asphalt plant rotary
dryers or industrial boilers sized 100 mmBTU/hr or greater in the
State, and so requirements for such equipment were not changed. New
Hampshire also notes that there are minimal emissions from wallboard
manufacturing facilities and auxiliary boilers, with only 34 tons of
annual NOX emitted from these two sectors collectively. New
Hampshire's conclusion that their current regulations for these
facilities constitutes RACT is reasonable when considering their
current emissions, the existing requirement for controls, and the
anticipated costs of achieving additional reductions. For example, New
Hampshire's existing RACT requirements contain a requirement for the
use of low-NOX burners by both types of facilities, and
EPA's ``Menu of Control Measures'' indicates that low-NOX
burners typically achieve a 50 percent NOX emission
reduction. Adding additional combustion controls such as flue gas
recirculation or overfire air can nominally increase the control
efficiency to 60 to 70%, but those controls can be costly and the added
cost to achieve this incremental emission reduction is likely to be
economically infeasible. Therefore, we agree with the State's
conclusion that additional NOX controls are not needed for
RACT for wallboard manufacturing and auxiliary boilers. The State's
technical supplement to the RACT certification submittal contains
additional information regarding the portions of the State's
NOX RACT requirements that were not revised.
    We note that New Hampshire's certification also mentions the
State's adoption of regulations recommended by the Ozone Transport
Commissions OTC that limit VOC emissions from consumer products and
architectural and industrial maintenance coatings regulations. Although
these rules will assist New Hampshire in its efforts to remain in
attainment of the ozone standard by lowering VOC emissions in the
State, they are not required for EPA's approval of the RACT
certification as they do not apply to major stationary sources or to
sources covered by a CTG. The OTC periodically makes recommendations to
its member States regarding ozone control strategies that the States
should consider adopting. The OTC's Stationary Source committee has
focused mostly on VOC area source and NOX point source
categories, but they did identify a VOC control strategy that is
applicable to both the VOC point and area source sectors, and New
Hampshire adopted this requirement. The specific provision is found
within New Hampshire's VOC RACT regulation at section Env-A 1221.02,
Compliance Standards for Cold Cleaning. It precludes use of solvents
with a vapor pressure of 1.0 millimeters of mercury or greater within a
cold cleaning machine, which is a restrictive requirement not found
within EPA's CTG for this sector.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Control Techniques Guidelines: Industrial Cleaning Solvents;
September, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the State's submittals and propose to agree that
the VOC and NOX stationary source control regulations which
New Hampshire has cited as meeting RACT satisfy the RACT obligation for
purposes of the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards and we are therefore
proposing to approve the State's September 6, 2018, RACT certification
SIPs.

2. Update to NOX RACT Regulation

    As mentioned above, New Hampshire performed an initial review of
its VOC and NOX RACT regulations in 2014 and concluded that
its VOC RACT regulation, Env-A 1200, and NOX RACT
regulation, Env-A 1300, contained sufficient requirements to satisfy
RACT and submitted its draft RACT analysis to EPA for comment. EPA's
review of New Hampshire's 2014 draft RACT submittal identified portions
of the State's NOX RACT requirements which were not likely
to meet RACT for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS and transmitted these
findings via a letter dated April 18, 2014. Specifically, EPA found
that the State's NOX emissions limits for electric utility
boilers and municipal waste combustors should be strengthened in order
to represent a RACT level of control. Accordingly, on September 6,
2018, New Hampshire submitted a SIP revision that requested that an
updated version of the State's NOX RACT regulation, entitled
Env-A 1300, Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT), be approved into the SIP. Env-A 1300
contains New Hampshire's NOX emissions limits and other
requirements for the various types of combustion equipment found in the
State as identified within section 1301.02 of the rule. The primary
changes New Hampshire made to the NOX RACT rule consist of
adoption of stricter NOX emission limits for MWCs and coal
fired utility boilers as EPA recommended in its 2014 comment letter,
and also additional, strengthened NOX requirements
applicable to peak shaving oil and gas fired engines.
    On March 28, 2023, New Hampshire submitted amendments to Env-A 1300
to revise a requirement applicable to coal-fired electric utility
boilers operating under ``low-load'' conditions to restrain such
operation to testing required under 40 CFR part 75. The revision also
included additional recordkeeping requirements for coal-fired electric
utility boilers that are applicable during periods of startup and
shutdown.
    Regarding MWCs, New Hampshire lowered the existing NOX
emission limit for incinerators (MWCs are a type of incinerator) to 150
ppm within Env-A 1309.03. The State's one remaining MWC facility, the
Wheelabrator-Concord Company located in Concord, NH, meets this
emissions limit by operating a selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)
system to control NOX emissions. Appendix D of a report
produced in February of 2017 by the Ozone Transport Commission \5\
(OTC) indicates that this NOX emissions limit is amongst the
lowest of all of the limits for MWC units in the OTR. For example, the
150 ppm NOX emissions limit is equivalent to or more
stringent than similar restrictions adopted by the three other New
England States with mass-burn waterwall MWC units similar to the type
operated in New Hampshire.\6\ An alternative emission limit of 205 ppm
is allowed during periods of startup or shutdown, which are limited in
time to no more than 3 hours per event.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ White Paper on Control Technologies and OTC State
Regulations for Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Eight Stationary
Source Categories; Ozone Transport Commissions; Final Draft, 02/10/
2017.
    \6\ For MWC NOX emissions limits for Massachusetts,
see 310 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, section 7.08: U
Incinerators, at 7.08(f), Table 3; for Connecticut, see the
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies at Section 22a-174-38,
Municipal Waste Combustors, paragraph (c), Table 38-2; for Maine,
see Chapter 138, NOX RACT, of Maine's Air Rules at
138(G).
    \7\ EPA evaluated New Hampshire's alternative emission limit of
205 ppm using the seven recommended approvability criteria outlined
in EPA's guidance for establishing alternative emission limitations
during periods of startup and shutdown and determined the emission
limit meets CAA requirements for SIP provisions. See Section VII.B
of 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015). EPA's evaluation of the alternative
emission limit is included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding peak shaving engines, New Hampshire lowered the
NOX emission limit for gas-fired rich burn engines from 2.0
to 1.5 grams per brake-horsepower hour (bhp-hr), and lowered the
emission limit for lean burn gas-fired engines from 3.0 to 2.5 grams
bhp-hr. New Hampshire also lowered the emission limit for oil-fired
engines from 9.0 grams per bhp-hr to a range of between 4.0 grams and
6.4 grams per bhp-hr depending on engine size. As can be seen by
information within

Appendix C of the OTC White Paper, these limits are consistent with
limits adopted by other States within the OTR.\8\ For example, the
State's limit for gas-fired rich burn engines is equal to the most
stringent limit of other States, and the limits for gas-fired lean burn
and for oil-fired engines are within the range of rates adopted by the
other OTC States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We note that the emissions limits shown within Appendix C
for diesel and for dual-fuel units for NH of 8.0 grams/hp-hr were
subsequently lowered by the oil-fired limits noted within this
paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding coal-fired electrical generating units (EGUs), New
Hampshire significantly lowered the NOX emission limits for
the State's two remaining operating coal-fired EGUs, those being units
MK1 and MK2 operated by Granite Shore Power at its facility located in
Bow, New Hampshire. New Hampshire's revised NOX RACT
regulation lowers the NOX emission rate for unit MK1 from
0.92 lbs per million british thermal units (mmBTU) of heat input to
0.22 lbs per mmBTU, based on a 24-hour averaging time. For MK2, New
Hampshire's revised NOX RACT regulation also lowers the
NOX emission limit to 0.22 lbs per mmBTU, down from a
previous limit of 1.4 lbs per mmBTU, and this limit is also based on a
24-hour averaging time. The emission units subject to these
requirements are cyclone boilers, and boilers of this configuration
have the highest uncontrolled emission rates of all coal-fired boiler
types listed within EPA's emission factor reference document referred
to as ``AP-42''.\9\ Table 1.1-3 of AP-42 provides an uncontrolled
emission rate for cyclone boilers of 33 pounds of NOX per
ton of coal burned, which is more than six times higher than the lowest
uncontrolled rate shown in the table. To reduce NOX
emissions from these high-emitting boilers, each unit is equipped with
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) control systems which is a highly
effective means of controlling NOX emissions from combustion
equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Volume 1, Section 1.1, Bituminous and Subbituminous Coal
Combustion, of AP-42, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/1.1_bituminous_and_subbituminous_coal_combustion.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the past decade, the two emissions units subject to these
requirements have been called upon less frequently to produce
electricity. For example, in 2010 unit 1 operated on 286 days and
emitted 1,071 tons of NOX for the year. The unit recorded 7
start-up events during that year. Unit 2 operated 290 days in calendar
year 2010 and emitted 2,342 tons of NOX for the year. The
unit recorded 6 startup events that year. By 2020, the facilities'
utilization had fallen considerably. In 2020, unit 1 operated on only
25 days, emitting 52 tons for the year, but experienced 10 start-up
events, more than it had in 2010. Unit 2 operated on only 21 days,
emitting 112 tons. Unit 2 experienced 8 start-up events in 2020, also
more start-up events than it had 10 years earlier. Given that
operations during start-up and shut-down modes now represent a larger
part of the facilities' overall operations, and recognizing that the
units cannot effectively run SCR controls to reduce NOX
emissions during these period, New Hampshire's revised regulation
provides, in addition to an emissions rate of 0.22 lbs per million BTU
that must be met on a 24-hour calendar day basis under normal operating
conditions, daily NOX mass-based emissions caps which are
applicable on days when startup, shutdown, and periodic testing \10\
occurs. The daily mass emission limits were derived to ensure the daily
mass emissions on startup, shutdown, or testing days are no more than
25% higher than the maximum mass emissions otherwise permitted. New
Hampshire developed these daily mass emission limits by reviewing unit-
specific data on the average time each unit spent in start-up and shut-
down modes, as well as NOX emitted in each mode, and set the
daily mass-based limits to ensure that the units could not spend
inordinate amounts of time starting up or shutting down. This approach
avoids the potential of a unit spending excessive amounts of time in
SCR-off mode. The units cannot ``hover'' in start-up or shut-down mode
to avoid utilizing their SCR to reduce NOX because they
would violate the daily mass limit if they remain in those modes for
longer than is truly necessary to transition the unit to normal
operations or to shut it down. New Hampshire chose this approach as the
preferred alternative to providing a higher emissions rate that would
have been needed if emissions during start-up and shut-down were
included within one overarching emissions rate covering all modes of
operation. Pursuant to Env-A 1303.04(c), the facility must keep a log
of each start-up and shut-down event that records the date of each
event and time spent in these modes, and the emissions that occur
during them.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Testing performed in accordance with 40 CFR part 75 that
require operation at low load levels that do not allow the requisite
SCR operational temperature to be met.
    \11\ EPA evaluated New Hampshire's alternative emission limits
during periods of startup, shutdown, malfunction for cyclone boilers
using the seven recommended approvability criteria outlined in EPA's
guidance for establishing alternative emission limitations, and
determined the emission limit meets CAA requirements for SIP
provisions. See Section VII.B of 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015). EPA's
evaluation of the alternative emission limits is included in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the revisions to Env-A 1300 described above, and
other less substantive revisions that New Hampshire made to the
regulation and determined that the tightening of emissions limits for
coal-fired EGUs, gas and oil-fired engines, and municipal waste
combustors will significantly reduce NOX emissions from the
equipment subject to these requirements and is consistent with RACT
limits adopted by other States for similar equipment.

3. Update to Definition of Emergency Generator

    New Hampshire's September 6, 2018, submittal of its updated
NOX RACT regulation, Env-A 1300, also included a revision to
a term within the State's definitions regulation found at Env-A 101,
Purpose; Definitions. In that revision, New Hampshire modified the
existing definition of ``emergency generator'' to make it consistent
with a 2015 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia \12\ that vacated provisions for emergency engines to operate
for demand-response purposes. Because of the Court's decision, engines
used for such purposes are subject to Federal requirements regarding
emission controls and other requirements for non-emergency engines.
Therefore, New Hampshire modified its definition of ``emergency
generator'' to make it consistent with the Court's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental
Control v. EPA, 785 F.3d 1 (D.C. Circuit; 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Withdrawal of RACT Orders Issued to Public Service of New Hampshire

    On August 16, 2018, New Hampshire submitted a request that
NOX RACT Order ARD-97-001, issued in 1997, and
NOX RACT Order ARD-98-001, issued in 1998, both of which had
been issued to the Public Service Corporation of New Hampshire, be
withdrawn from the SIP. The State made this request because the
NOX emissions limits contained within the orders had been
superseded by more stringent limits within the State's revised Env-A
1300, NOX RACT, which the State subsequently submitted to
EPA as a SIP revision request on September 6, 2018. We agree that the
emissions units covered by these orders are now subject to the more
restrictive limits within the revised version of Env-A 1300 that we

are proposing approval of elsewhere in this action, and therefore for
regulatory clarity we are proposing to grant the State's request to
remove Orders ARD-97-001 and ARD-98-001 from the New Hampshire SIP if
EPA finalizes its proposed approval of the associated revision of Env-A
1300.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the following items into the New
Hampshire SIP: a RACT certification for the 2008 and 2015 ozone
standards, revisions to New Hampshire's NOX RACT regulation,
Env-A 1300, a revision to the term ``emergency generator'' as used
within the State's air pollution control regulations, and withdrawal
from the New Hampshire SIP of NOX RACT Orders ARD-97-001 and
ARD-98-001. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed
in this proposed rule. These comments will be considered before taking
final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed
rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this document.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. The
proposed changes are described in sections I. and III. of this
preamble. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference New Hampshire regulation Env-A
1300, NOX RACT, and the term ``emergency generator'' as
defined within Env-A 100 of the New Hampshire Code of Administrative
Rules. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 1 Office. Please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' The air agency did
not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of
the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral
to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of
E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have Tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 5, 2023.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2023-14535 Filed 7-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 133 (Friday, July 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40097-40098]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16196]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-512-000]

Enbridge Offshore Facilities, LLC; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on July 1, 2014, Enbridge Offshore Facilities, LLC
(EOF) pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2)
(2013), filed a petition for declaratory order requesting that the
Commission confirm that the proposed EOF facilities and Gas Delivery
Line described in this petition, will not be engaged in the
transportation of natural gas subject to the Commission's jurisdiction
under the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717, et seq.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 15, 2014

    Dated: July 3, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-16196 Filed 7-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 49511]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19748]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9900-00-OAR]

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC): Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces a public
meeting of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC). The EPA
established the CAAAC on November 19, 1990, to provide independent
advice and counsel to EPA on policy issues associated with
implementation of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The Committee advises on
economic, environmental, technical, scientific and enforcement policy
issues.

DATES AND ADDRESSES:  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Section 10(a) (2),
notice is hereby given that the CAAAC will hold its next meeting on
October 16, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the EPA Conference
Facility at Potomac Yard, One Potomac Yard, Potomac Yard South, 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202. Non-EPA attendees will need to
present photo identification for entrance into the building. Seating
will be available on a first come, first served basis. The Permits, New
Source Review and Toxics Subcommittee will meet at the same location on
October 15, 2013, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Inspection of Committee Documents: The Committee agenda and any
documents prepared for the meeting will be publicly available on the
CAAAC Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/ prior to the meeting.
Thereafter, these documents, together with CAAAC meeting minutes, will
also be available on the CAAAC Web site or by contacting the Office of
Air and Radiation Docket and requesting information under docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2004-0075. The Docket office can be reached by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information about the CAAAC,
please contact Jeneva Craig, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Office
of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information on the Permits, New
Source Review and Toxics subcommittee, please contact Liz Naess at
(919) 541-1892. Additional Information on these meetings, CAAAC, and
its Subcommittees can be found on the CAAAC Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/.
    For information on access or services for individuals with
disabilities, please contact Ms. Jeneva Craig at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting
to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: August 7, 2013.
Jeneva Craig,
Designated Federal Officer, Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, Office of
Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2013-19748 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Neurotoxicity for Human Health Risk Assessment. August 25, 2020.
Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0263-0033.
24. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (2020). Peer Review of the Use
of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) to Derive Extrapolation Factors
and Evaluate Developmental Neurotoxicity for Human Health Risk
Assessment. Final Report from the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel
Meeting of September 15-18, 2020. Report dated December 15, 2020.
Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0263-0054.
25. U.S. EPA (2006). Reregistration Eligibility Decision for
Chlorpyrifos. July 31, 2006. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/red_PC-059101_1-Jul-06.pdf.
26. U.S. EPA (2011). Revised Chlorpyrifos Preliminary Registration
Review Drinking Water Assessment. June 20, 2011. Available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0026.
27. U.S. EPA (2014). Updated Drinking Water Assessment for
Registration Review. December 23. 2014. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0198.
28. U.S. EPA (2016). Chlorpyrifos: Revised Human Health Risk
Assessment for Registration Review. November 3, 2016. Available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0454.
29. U.S. EPA (2016). Chlorpyrifos Refined Drinking Water Assessment
for Registration Review. April 14, 2016. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0437.
30. U.S. EPA (2020). Updated Chlorpyrifos Refined Drinking Water
Assessment for Registration Review. September 15, 2020. Available
at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0941.
31. U.S. EPA (2020). Chlorpyrifos Proposed Interim Registration
Review Decision. December 3, 2020. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0971.
32. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (2008). The Agency's Evaluation
of the Toxicity Profile of Chlorpyrifos. Final Report from the FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting of September 16-18, 2008. Report
dated December 17, 2008. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0274-0064.
33. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (2010). Draft Framework and Case
Studies on Atrazine, Human Incidents, and the Agricultural Health
Study: Incorporation of Epidemiology and Human Incident Data into
Human Health Risk Assessment. Final Report from the FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel Meeting of February 2-4, 2010. Report dated April 22,
2010. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0851-0059.
34. The Petition from NRDC and PANNA, EPA's various responses to it,
and the objections submitted on the Petition denial are available in
docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1005 at https://www.regulations.gov.
35. U.S. EPA (2009). Chlorpyrifos Final Work Plan. September 25,
2009. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0020.
36. American Soybean Association. Objections, Request for
Evidentiary Hearing, Request to Stay Tolerance Revocations.
Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0022.
37. American Sugarbeet Growers Association, U.S. Beet Sugar
Association. Objections to Decision Revoking All Chlorpyrifos
Tolerances. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0029.
38. Cherry Marketing Institute. Formal Written Objections and
Request for Evidentiary Hearing for Chlorpyrifos Tolerance
Revocation. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0024.
39. Gharda Chemicals International, Inc.'s Objections to the Final
Rule Revoking All Tolerances for Chlorpyrifos. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0028.
40. U.S. EPA, Administrative Law Judge (2020). Order Urging
Electronic Service and Filing. April 10, 2020. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_order_urging_electronic_service_and_filing.pdf.
41. Columbia Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism. Comment.
Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0027.
42. Drexel Chemical Company. Objections, Request for Stay, Request
for Product Phase Out. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0021.
43. International Pepper Community. Comment. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0014.
44. Oregonians for Food & Shelter. Formal Objections and Request to
Stay Tolerance Revocation of Chlorpyrifos. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0023.
45. Republic of Ecuador. Comments on Chlorpyrifos: Tolerance
Revocations Rule by the EPA. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0026.
46. National Association of Wheat Growers. Comment. Available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0016.
47. Agricultural Retailers Association et al. Formal Written
Objections and Request to Stay Tolerance Revocations: Chlorpyrifos.
Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0007.
48. Cranberry Industry comments on EPA's Pesticide Registration
Review: Proposed Interim Decision for Chlorpyrifos. Available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-1075.
49. Minor Crop Farmer Alliance. Objections to the Revocation of
Chlorpyrifos Tolerances Final Rule. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0018.
50. CropLife America and Responsible Industry for a Sound
Environment. Objections, Request for Stay, Request for Guidance.
Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0004.
51. U.S. EPA (2021). List of External Meetings Between EPA and
Chlorpyrifos Stakeholders. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0002.
52. California Citrus Quality Council. Objections to the Revocation
of Chlorpyrifos Tolerances Final Rule. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0019.
53. Coalition of Organophosphate (OP) Registrants. Written Objection
on Chlorpyrifos Tolerance Revocation Final Rule. Available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0003.
54. U.S. EPA (2020). EPA Requests Comments on New Methodologies to
Estimate Pesticide Concentrations in Surface Waters. January 15,
2020. See announcement at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-requests-comments-new-methodologies-estimate-pesticide-concentrations-surface-waters.
55. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) (1993). Guidance for Implementing E.O.
12866. October 12, 1993. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/eo12866_implementation_guidance.pdf.
56. U.S. EPA (2020). Revised Benefits of Agricultural Uses of
Chlorpyrifos s (PC#

059101). November 18, 2020. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850-0969.
57. U.S. EPA (2021). EPA Takes Action to Address Risk from
Chlorpyrifos and Protect Children's Health. Announcement. August 18,
2021. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-takes-action-address-risk-chlorpyrifos-and-protect-childrens-health.
58. Republic of Columbia. Comment. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0020.
59. World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Available at:
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e.htm.
60. The Codex website contains a listing of current chlorpyrifos
MRLs. (Last viewed February 13, 2022). Available at: https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/codex-texts/dbs/pestres/pesticide-detail/en/?p_id=17.
61. WTO (2001). Doha Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and
Concerns. WT/MIN(01)/17 (2001).
62. Michigan Vegetable Council. Formal Written Objections and
Request to Stay Tolerance Revocations: Chlorpyrifos. Available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0005.
63. U.S. EPA (2022). Frequent Questions about the Chlorpyrifos 2021
Final Rule. (Last viewed February 13, 2022). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/frequent-questions-about-chlorpyrifos-2021-final-rule#question-10.
64. Willard Jack. Formal Written Objections and Request to Stay
Tolerance Revocations: Chlorpyrifos. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0013.
65. U.S. FDA (2022). Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers
Regarding Channels of Trade Policy for Human Food Commodities with
Chlorpyrifos Residues. February 2022. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-questions-and-answers-regarding-channels-trade-policy-human-food-commodities.
66. Sugarbeet Associations. Request for Stay of Decision Revoking
All Chlorpyrifos Tolerances. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0029.
67. Gharda. Petition to Stay the Effective Date of the Revocation of
All Tolerances for Chlorpyrifos. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0028.
68. U.S. EPA (2021). Chlorpyrifos Revocation Small Business and
Employment Analysis. August 12, 2021. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523.
69. Earthjustice. LULAC Petitioners' Feedback on the Environmental
Protection Agency's Chlorpyrifos Tolerance Revocation Rule and
Comments on Growers' Objections. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0523-0017.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-04139 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43301-43303]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19663]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0786]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Tombigbee River, Demopolis, AL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters of the Tombigbee River from mile marker (MM) 215.5
to MM 216.5, near Demopolis, AL. This action is necessary to protect
persons and property on navigable waters during a fireworks display
taking place on or over the waterway. Entry into or transiting in this
zone is prohibited to all vessels, mariners, and persons unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP)
or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on September
16, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0786 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Kyle D. Berry, Sector Mobile, Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Mobile
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. It is
impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety
zone by September 16, 2017 and lack sufficient time to provide a
reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before
issuing the rule.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the
effective date to provide a full 30 days' notice is contrary to public
interest because immediate action is needed to protect persons and
vessels from safety hazards associated with the fireworks display over
this navigable waterway.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231. The Marengo County Historical Society plans to conduct a
fireworks display launched from shore on the Tombigbee River located
near mile marker (MM) 216.0, in Demopolis, AL on September 16, 2017.
Therefore, the Coast Guard has determined that a safety zone is needed
to protect the public, mariners, and vessels from the potential hazards
associated with a barge-based fireworks display on and over the
waterway.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone
encompassing all waters extending the entire width of the Tombigbee
River from MM 215.5 to MM 216.5, near Demopolis, AL from 8 p.m. through
10 p.m. on September 16, 2017. The location and duration of this safety
zone is intended to protect persons and vessels during the fireworks
display taking place over this navigable waterway. No person or vessel
will be permitted to enter or transit within the safety zone, unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP)
or a designated representative. The COTP may be contacted by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and

pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of
Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory determination is based on the duration, location,
and size of the safety zone. This safety zone will restrict vessel
traffic from entering or transiting in a one mile portion of the
Tombigbee River, in Demopolis, AL for a duration of two hours.
Additionally, notifications to the marine community will be made
through BNMs. These notifications will allow the public to plan
operations around the affected area and vessels may request permission
from the COTP to transit through the safety zone.

B. Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety zone on a one mile section of
the Tombigbee River during a firework display and is not expected to
result in any significant adverse environmental impact as described in
NEPA. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph (34)(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record
of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0786 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0786  Safety Zone; Tombigbee River, Demopolis, AL

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Tombigbee River from mile marker (MM) 215.5 to MM 216.5
near Demopolis, AL.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 p.m.
through 10 p.m. on September 16, 2017.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in Sec.
165.23 as well as the regulations in this section apply to the
regulated area.
    (2) Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) or a designated
representative.
    (3) Persons or vessels seeking to enter into or transit through the
zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. They may be

contacted on VHF-FM channels 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to
mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone.

    Dated: August 24, 2017.
M.R. McLellan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Mobile.
[FR Doc. 2017-19663 Filed 9-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 138 (Thursday, July 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33551-33554]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15256]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0011; Notice 2]

Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2016-2017 Freightliner trucks do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101,
Controls and Displays. DTNA filed a noncompliance report dated January
19, 2017, and amended it on January 25, 2017. DTNA also petitioned
NHTSA on January 20, 2017, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Stu Seigel,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile
(202) 366-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA), has determined
that certain model year (MY) 2016-2017 Freightliner trucks do not fully
comply with Table 2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 101, Controls and Displays. DTNA filed a noncompliance report dated
January 19, 2017, and amended it on January 25, 2017, pursuant to 49
CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. DTNA
also petitioned NHTSA on January 20, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on April 7, 2017, in the Federal Register (82 FR
17069). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the
online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2017-0011.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 81,641 MY 2016-
2017 versions of the following trucks, manufactured between March 2,
2015 and September 8, 2016:

 Freightliner 108SD
 Freightliner Business Class M2
 Freightliner Cascadia
 Freightliner 114SD

    III. Noncompliance: DTNA explains that the noncompliance is that
the Low Brake Air Pressure telltale for air brake systems displays the
word ``BRAKE'' and a message on an adjacent display screen says ``LOW
AIR'', rather than the words ``BRAKE AIR,'' as specified in Table 2 of
FMVSS No. 101. DTNA states

that the telltale is accompanied by an audible alert and pressure
gauges.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 101 provides: ``Each
passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus that is
fitted with a control, a telltale, or an indicator listed in Table 1 or
Table 2 must meet the requirements of this standard for the location,
identification, color, and illumination of that control, telltale or
indicator.''
    Paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101 provides, in pertinent part: ``.
. . each control, telltale and indicator that is listed in column 1 of
Table 1 or Table 2 must be identified by the symbol specified for it in
column 2 or the word or abbreviation specified for it in column 3 of
Table 1 or Table 2.''
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN20JY17.000

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    V. Summary of DTNA's Petition: DTNA described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, DTNA submitted the following reasoning:
    (a) DTNA notes that the purpose of the low brake air pressure
telltale is to alert the driver to a low air condition, consistent with
the requirements of FMVSS No. 121, S5.1.5 (warning signal). The word
``BRAKE'' instead of ``BRAKE AIR,'' together with a message on the
display screen saying ``LOW AIR!'' and an audible alert that occurs in
the subject vehicles would alert the driver to an air issue with the
brake system. Once alerted, the driver can check the actual air
pressure by reading the primary and secondary air gauges and seeing the
contrasting color on the gauges indicating low pressure.
    (b) NHTSA stated in a 2005 FMVSS No. 101 rulemaking that the reason
for including vehicles over 10,000 pounds in the requirements of FMVSS
No. 101 is that there is a need for drivers of heavier vehicles to see
and identify their displays, just as there is for drivers of lighter
vehicles. See 70 FR 48295, 48298 (Aug. 17, 2005). The telltale in the
subject vehicles saying ``BRAKE'' and the message on the display screen
that says ``LOW AIR!'' would allow the driver to see and identify the
improper functioning system as was the intent of the rule, thus serving
the purpose of the FMVSS No. 101 requirement.
    (c) Drivers of commercial vehicles would conduct daily pre-trip

inspections of their vehicles paying particular attention to the
warning signs and gauges to ensure correct functionality of their
vehicles braking system, before driving the vehicle. Drivers therefore
would be very familiar with the telltales and other warnings, and their
meaning, in the event a low air warning was to occur while the vehicle
was driven.
    (d) There are two scenarios when a low brake air pressure condition
would exist: A parked vehicle and a moving vehicle. Each of these are
discussed separately below; in each scenario, there is ample warning
provided to the driver of low brake air pressure.

1. Parked Vehicle

    The driver of an air-braked vehicle must ensure that the vehicle
has enough brake air pressure to operate safely. At startup, the
vehicle will likely be in a low air condition. When in a low air
condition the following warnings would occur, conditioning the driver
over time as to the purpose of the telltale, message and audible alerts
and under what conditions they are activated.

 Red contrasting color of the telltale saying ``BRAKE''
 Message on the display screen that says ``LOW AIR!''
 Audible alert to the driver as long as the vehicle has low air
 Air gauges for the primary and secondary air tanks clearly
showing the air pressure in the system
 Red contrasting color on the air gauges indicating when the
pressure is low
 Difficulty/inability of releasing the parking brakes with low
air
 Reduced drivability if the driver attempts to drive with the
parking brakes applied

2. Moving Vehicle

    If a low brake air pressure situation occurs while driving, the
function of the service brakes may be reduced or lost and, eventually
if the pressure gets low enough, the parking brakes will engage. The
driver must pull to the side of the road and apply the parking brakes
as soon as possible. A loss of brake air pressure while driving
represents a malfunctioning brake system and requires immediate action
from the driver. Drivers recognize that a telltale illuminated in red
represents a malfunction which needs to be remedied.
    The following warning would occur if a low air condition occurred
while driving.

 Red contrasting color of the telltale saying ``BRAKE''
 Message on the display screen that says ``LOW AIR!''
 Audible alert to the driver as long as the vehicle has low air
 Air gauges for the primary and secondary air tanks clearly
showing the air pressure in the system
 Red contrasting color on the air gauges indicating when the
pressure is low.

    (e) The functionality of both the parking brake system and the
service brake system remains unaffected by the ``BRAKE'' telltale used
in the subject vehicles.
    (f) NHTSA Precedents--DTNA notes that NHTSA has previously granted
petitions for decisions of inconsequential noncompliance for similar
brake telltale issues. See Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0004, 78 FR 69931
(November 21, 2013) (grant of petition for Ford Motor Company) and
Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0046, 79 FR 78559 (December 30, 2014) (grant of
petition for Chrysler Group, LLC). In both of these instances, the
vehicles at issue did not have the exact wording as required under
FMVSS No. 101. The available warnings were deemed sufficient to provide
the necessary driver warning. DTNA respectfully suggest that the same
is true for the subject vehicles: The red ``BRAKE'' telltale and the
``LOW AIR!'' pop-up message, together with other warnings and alerts,
are fully sufficient to warn the driver of a low brake air pressure
situation.
    DTNA concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

NHTSA'S Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA has reviewed DTNA's analyses that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Specifically, the telltale marking for low brake air pressure says
``Brake'' instead of ``Brake Air'' as required in table 2 of FMVSS No.
101 and FMVSS No. 121. We believe that this incomplete labeling poses
no risk to motor vehicle safety because multiple sources of
information, as discussed below, are simultaneously activated to
properly warn the driver of the low air condition.
    1. When a low air pressure situation exists, for both a parked or
moving vehicle, the ``Brake'' telltale will activate in red letters
with a black background. There are no requirements in FMVSS No. 101 or
121 for the color of the telltale, but DTNA's use of red, which is an
accepted color representing an urgent condition, provides a definitive
indication of a situation that needs attention.
    2. Activation of the ``Brake'' telltale is accompanied by
illumination on the instrument cluster message display screen with the
words ``LOW AIR!'' in white, upper case lettering with a green
background. The height of the lettering appears greater than that of
the surrounding telltales and is followed by an exclamation point for
increased importance. In a follow-up telephone conversation with DTNA
after notice of receipt of petition was published, DTNA confirmed that
the lettering height was one quarter inch. Although there is no
lettering height requirement for ``Brake Air,'' and the specification
is only that the warning be visible, for reference, a common minimum
height for many FMVSS visual indicators is one-eighth inch. This
combined with the green rectangular background, which also is
comparatively large, is readily visible to the operator and is unlikely
to be overlooked. Both the ``BRAKE'' telltale and the ``LOW AIR!''
message are in clear view of the driver and when activated will alert
the driver of a brake system malfunction.
    3. Simultaneous to illumination of both the ``Brake'' telltale and
``LOW AIR!'' in the message center, is activation of an audible alert,
further notifying the operator that a malfunction exists requiring
corrective action. Although the alert would not in and of itself
identify the problem, a driver would be prompted by the warning tone to
heed the telltales and warning messages activated in the instrument
cluster (i.e., ``Brake'' and ``LOW AIR!'').
    4. In a low pressure situation, the operator is provided additional
feedback by the primary and secondary instrument cluster air gauges
which are marked with PSI numerical values along with red-delineated
ranges where the needle pointers would be positioned during a low
pressure condition.
    5. NHTSA agrees with DTNA that for a vehicle that is parked, if a
low air condition were present, along with the operator feedback
described above, there would be difficulty or an inability to release
the parking brake and/or reduced drivability, as sufficient air in the
system is required to release the parking brake.
    6. Further, NHTSA agrees with DTNA's contention that the
functionality of the parking brake system and the braking performance
of the service brake system remains unaffected by use of the telltale
word

``Brake'' instead of ``Brake Air'' on the subject vehicles.
    7. Lastly, NHTSA believes that, as these affected trucks are
predominately used as commercial vehicles with professional drivers,
operators will monitor their vehicle's condition and take note of any
warning signs and gauge readings to ensure proper functionality of all
systems. As DTNA states, and we agree, drivers will be familiar with
the meaning of telltales and other warnings and the feedback provided
to the driver in these vehicles if a low brake pressure condition
exists would be well understood.
    NHTSA concludes that simultaneous activation of red ``Brake''
telltale with a black contrasting background, message center wording
``LOW AIR!'' in large white letters on a substantially sized green
contrasting background, and an audible alert for a low air pressure
condition, along with the primary and secondary air gauge indicators,
and the reduced drivability of the vehicles under a low air pressure
condition, provides adequate notification to the operator that a brake
malfunction exists. NHTSA further concludes that the discrepancy with
the labeling requirement is unlikely to lead to any misunderstanding
since other sources of correct information beyond the ``Brake''
telltale, are always provided.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds
that DTNA has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 101
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, DTNA's petition is hereby granted and DTNA is consequently
exempted from the obligation to provide notification of, and remedy
for, the subject noncompliance in the affected vehicles under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that DTNA no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their control after DTNA notified them
that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-15256 Filed 7-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P