[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 778-784]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00041]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0760; FRL-9905-12-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Florida New Source Review--Prevention of Significant Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Florida State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), Division of Air Resources Management,
to EPA on December 19, 2013. The SIP revision modifies FDEP's New
Source

Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting
regulations to provide FDEP with the authority to issue PSD permits
governing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, to establish appropriate
emission thresholds for determining which new stationary sources and
modifications to existing stationary sources become subject to
Florida's PSD permitting requirements for their GHG emissions, and to
provide for the implementation of GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits
(PALs) on a CO2e basis. EPA is proposing approval of
Florida's December 19, 2013, SIP revision because the Agency has
determined that the SIP revision is in accordance with the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) and EPA regulations regarding the PSD permitting
program. EPA also is proposing that upon final approval of the December
19, 2013, SIP revision, EPA will rescind the GHG PSD Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for Florida that was put in place to ensure
the availability of a permitting authority for GHGs in Florida.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0760 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0760, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0760.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person 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 Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Florida
SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bradley's telephone number is (404)
562-9352; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
regarding NSR and GHG permitting, contact Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air
Permits Section, at the same address above. Ms. Adams' telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
III. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's SIP revision?
IV. Proposed Actions
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    On December 19, 2013, FDEP submitted a SIP revision to EPA for
approval into the Florida SIP to adopt rules equivalent to Federal
requirements for NSR PSD permitting. The SIP revision consists of
changes to the FDEP Air Quality Regulations, at Chapter 62-210, Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.), Stationary Sources--General Requirements,
Section 200--Definitions (rule 62-210.200). The December 19, 2013, SIP
revision changes the definition of ``PSD pollutant'' to provide Florida
with the authority to regulate GHGs \1\ under its PSD program as well
as to establish the appropriate emission thresholds for determining
which new stationary sources and modification projects become subject
to the State's PSD permitting requirements for their GHG emissions as
promulgated in the GHG Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010).\2\
Florida's December 19, 2013, submission also incorporates by reference
\3\ (IBR) the GHG PAL provisions that were promulgated in EPA's July
12, 2012, Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule.\4\ In addition, EPA is proposing
that upon final approval of the December 19, 2013, SIP revision, EPA
will rescind the GHG PSD FIP for

Florida that was put in place to ensure the availability of a
permitting authority for GHGs in Florida. See 75 FR 82246 (December 30,
2010). For more information on Florida's FIP see section III of this
rulemaking. EPA's proposed approval of Florida's December 19, 2013, SIP
revision includes approval of the GHG PSD Permit Transition Plan
described in section IV.D. of this rulemaking. Pursuant to section 110
of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve these changes into the Florida
SIP.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Throughout this document, where appropriate, EPA will use
the acronyms ``GHG'' and ``GHGs'' to express the term greenhouse gas
or greenhouse gases, respectively.
    \2\ ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 31514 (June 3,
2010) (GHG Tailoring Rule)
    \3\ Throughout this rulemaking the acronym IBR means
``incorporate by reference'' or ``incorporates by reference.''
    \4\ ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Operating Permit Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG
Plantwide Applicability Limits.'' 77 FR 41051 (July 12, 2012) (Step
3 GHG Tailoring Rule).
    \5\ EPA also promulgated the GHG Tailoring Rule for the title V
operating permit program in the rulemaking entitled ``Action To
Ensure Authority To Implement Title V Permitting Programs Under the
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,'' 75 FR 82254 (December 30, 2010).
However, today's action does not affect Florida's title V program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

    This section briefly summarizes EPA's GHG-related actions that
provide the background for this action. Please see the preambles for
the identified GHG-related rulemakings for more information.

A. EPA's GHG Tailoring Rule, SIP Call, and FIP

    Beginning in 2010, EPA promulgated a series of actions pertaining
to the regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part are distinct
from one another, established the overall framework for today's
proposed action on the Florida SIP. Four of these actions include, as
they are commonly called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and ``Cause or
Contribute Finding,'' (which EPA issued in a single final action); \6\
the ``Johnson Memo Reconsideration;'' \7\ the ``Light-Duty Vehicle
Rule;'' \8\ and the GHG Tailoring Rule. Taken together and in
conjunction with the CAA, these actions established regulatory
requirements for GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines; determined that such regulations, when they took
effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs emitted from stationary
sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability of PSD
requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA took this last
action in the GHG Tailoring Rule, which, more specifically, established
appropriate GHG emission thresholds for determining the applicability
of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources. In the GHG Tailoring Rule,
EPA tailored the applicability criteria that determine which GHG
emission sources become subject to the PSD program of the CAA to
relieve overwhelming permitting burdens that would, in the absence of
the rule, fall on permitting authorities and sources. See 75 FR 31514
(June 3, 2010). As EPA explained in the GHG Tailoring Rule, the
threshold limitations are necessary because without them PSD would
apply to all stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit
more than 100 or 250 tons of GHG per year as of January 2, 2011.
January 2, 2011, was the date when EPA's Light-Duty Vehicle Rule took
effect, imposing control requirements for the first time on carbon
dioxide and other GHGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (December 15, 2009).
    \7\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (April
2, 2010).
    \8\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA requested that permitting
authorities confirm whether their SIPs provide authority to implement
the GHG Tailoring Rule thresholds. See 75 FR at 31582. FDEP provided a
letter (commonly referred to as the 60-day letter) to EPA on July 2,
2010, explaining: ``[F]lorida's PSD permitting program is limited to
those pollutants identified in our state rules as, `PSD pollutant,' a
term that does not include GHGs. In order to incorporate GHGs into our
PSD permitting program, we will need to amend our state rules and
submit a SIP revision to EPA.'' See Docket ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0760
for a copy Florida's 60-day letter.
    On September 2, 2010, EPA issued proposed findings of substantial
inadequacy \9\ and a proposed ``SIP call'' for Florida and other states
with SIP-approved PSD programs that did not apply PSD to GHGs. See 75
FR 53883. The purpose of the SIP call was to require these states to
revise their SIPs by a specific deadline to ensure that their PSD
program covered GHG-emitting sources. In the proposed SIP call, EPA
requested that each SIP call state confirm to EPA that its SIP did not
apply the PSD program to GHGs. Id. at 53896. EPA further requested that
each SIP call state identify the deadline that they would accept for
submitting their corrective SIP revision. Id. In response, FDEP
submitted a letter (referred to as the 30-day letter) to EPA on October
1, 2010, reiterating that Florida's SIP did not apply PSD permitting
requirements to sources of GHG. See 75 FR 53883. Florida explained that
PSD permitting applicability in the State was established based on the
application of the terms ``PSD pollutant,'' ``major stationary
source,'' ``major modification'' and ``significant emission rates''
(the key term being ``PSD pollutant''). The definition of ``PSD
pollutant'' is limited by a state rule to a finite set of pollutants
which did not include GHG. Florida also indicated it did not oppose the
SIP call's establishment of a December 22, 2013, deadline to submit a
corrective SIP revision. See Docket ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0760 for
Florida's 30-day letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ When Federal permitting requirements change, as they did
when EPA's GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles took
effect on January 2011, states may need to modify their SIPs to meet
the new requirements. Assuring that each state and local permitting
agency has the authority to permit GHGs requires SIP changes in a
number of states. In the final SIP call rule, EPA found that PSD
permitting regulations in 15 state and local permitting agencies
states do not meet CAA requirements because their programs at the
time did not cover GHG emissions. In these states, at the time of
the GHG SIP call, neither EPA nor the state had authority to issue a
PSD permit to sources of GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2010, EPA promulgated additional rulemakings to
implement the new GHG PSD SIP program. Recognizing that some states had
SIP-approved PSD programs that did not apply PSD to GHGs, EPA finalized
the findings of substantial inadequacy and GHG SIP call \10\ for
Florida and 14 other state and local permitting authorities where the
existing SIP-approved PSD program did not provide authority to regulate
GHGs. The SIP call required the 15 state and local permitting
authorities to revise their SIPs by a specific deadline to ensure that
their PSD program covered GHG emitting sources. In the SIP call, EPA
explained that if a state identified in the SIP call failed to submit
the required corrective SIP revision by the applicable deadline, the
Agency would promulgate a FIP under CAA section 110(c)(1)(A) for that
state to govern PSD permitting for GHGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Call,'' Final Rule.'' 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010) (GHG SIP
call).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDEP, along with several other state and local permitting
authorities, did not submit a corrective SIP revision to apply its PSD
program to sources of GHG by the specified deadline cited in the SIP
call. Therefore on December 29, 2010,\11\ EPA published a finding of
failure to submit the required SIP revision by the specified deadline
and then

promulgated the GHG PSD FIP.\12\ EPA explained in the SIP call and GHG
PSD FIP that the purpose of the two rulemakings and their expedited
schedules was to ensure that GHG-emitting sources in the affected
states, including Florida, would have a permitting authority (i.e.,
EPA) to act on the GHG PSD permit applications by January 2, 2011 (date
that GHGs became subject to PSD). EPA also emphasized that its
``overarching goal is to assure that in every instance, it will be the
state that will be the permitting authority,'' and that as a result,
EPA sought to return permitting authority to the states as soon as
possible. See 75 FR at 77717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State
Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,'' 75 FR
81874 (December 29, 2010).
    \12\ ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan,'' 75 FR 82246
(December 30, 2010) (GHG PSD FIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule

    In the June 3, 2010, GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA established a phased-
in approach to implementing CAA permitting requirements to regulate
GHG-emitting sources through the PSD program (referred to as Steps 1
and 2). See 75 FR 31514. Step 1,\13\ which took effect on January 2,
2011; and Step 2,\14\ which took effect on July 1, 2012, and
incorporated Step 1, established the PSD and title V applicability
thresholds at what EPA calls the 100,000/75,000 levels, which refers to
the number of tons per year (tpy) in carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e) \15\ basis. Also in the GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA made
regulatory commitments for a subsequent action (or Step 3) to propose
or solicit comment on lowering the 100,000/75,000 threshold on the
basis of three criteria that concerned whether the permitting
authorities had the necessary time to develop greater administrative
capacity due to an increase in resources or permitting experience, as
well as whether the EPA and the permitting authorities had developed
effective strategies to streamline the issuance of permits. However,
after assessing the progress of GHG permitting, EPA determined that the
three criteria mentioned above had not been met because neither the
Agency nor the states have made sufficient progress developing
sufficient capacity or streamlining mechanisms to handle a larger
number of permits than Steps 1 and 2 require. As a result, on July 12,
2012, EPA finalized the Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule \16\ determining not
to lower the current, 100,000/75,000 applicability thresholds to bring
additional sources into the PSD and title V permitting programs (or
apply PSD and title V permitting requirements to additional, smaller
sources of GHG emissions).\17\ See 77 FR 41051.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, PSD requirements apply
to sources' GHG emissions if the sources were subject to PSD anyway
due to their non-GHG regulated air pollutants (``anyway'' sources)
and emit or have the potential to emit at least 75,000 tons per year
(tpy) (not defined until the next page) CO2e not defined
until the next page. For title V, existing sources with, or new
sources obtaining, title V permits are required to address GHG
emissions in those permits as necessary.
    \14\ Under Step 2, PSD applies to the largest GHG-emitting
sources that are not ``anyway'' sources and that are either new
sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 100,000 tpy
CO2e or existing sources that emit at that level and that
undertake modifications that increase emissions by at least 75,000
tpy CO2e, and also emit at least 100/250 tpy of GHGs on a
mass basis. In addition, under Step 2, title V applies to existing
sources that are not ``anyway'' sources that emit or have the
potential to emit 100,000 tpy (CO2e).
    \15\ CO2e is a common metric used to evaluate the six
constituent gases (including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) and in
the case of the GHG Tailoring rule to determine PSD applicability. A
source's GHG emissions are calculated on a CO2e basis by
multiplying the mass emissions of any of the six GHGs that the
source emits by that gas's global warming potential and then summing
the CO2e for each GHG emitted by the source. This sum,
expressed in terms of tpy CO2e, is then compared to the
applicable CO2e-based permitting threshold to determine
whether the source is subject to PSD and title V requirements.
    \16\ ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG Plant-wide
Applicability Limits,'' 77 FR 41051, (July 12, 2012) (the Step 3 GHG
Tailoring Rule).
    \17\ Currently, new facilities with GHG emissions of at least
100,000 tpy CO2e and existing facilities with at least
100,000 tpy CO2e making changes that would increase GHG
emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e, are required to
obtain PSD permits. Facilities that must obtain a PSD permit anyway,
to cover other regulated pollutants, must also address GHG emissions
increases of 75,000 tpy CO2e or more. New and existing sources with
GHG emissions above 100,000 tpy CO2e must also obtain operating
permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA also finalized an approach to
assist state and local permitting authorities in streamlining the
administration of PSD permits for GHGs through the PALs.\18\ This
approach will improve the usefulness of PALs for GHG emissions by
allowing GHG PALs to be established on a CO2e basis in
addition to the already available mass-basis.\19\ EPA also revised its
regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 to allow a source that emits or has the
potential to emit GHGs at levels above 100,000 tpy CO2e but
that has emissions of other regulated pollutants at minor source levels
(or GHG-only source) to apply for a GHG PAL while still maintaining its
minor source status.\20\ Florida's December 19, 2013, SIP revision IBR
EPA's Step 3 Tailoring Rule related to the GHG PAL permitting
regulations. See section IV for EPA's analysis of Florida's SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A PAL is an emissions limit applied source-wide rather than
to specific emissions points. With a PAL, a source can make changes
to the facility without triggering PSD permitting requirements as
long as emissions do not increase above the limit established by the
PAL. This allows companies to respond rapidly to changing market
conditions while protecting the environment.
    \19\ Under EPA's interpretation of the Federal PAL provisions,
PALs are already available under PSD for non-GHG pollutants and for
GHGs on a mass basis. The Step 3 Tailoring Rule revised the PALs
regulations and subject to regulation provisions at 40 CFR 52.21 to
provide GHG sources with the same kind of flexibility sources
currently had for other regulated NSR pollutants by allowing sources
the option to establish a CO2e-based PAL using the
CO2e-based emission. See 77 FR at 41060.
    \20\ EPA did not finalize its proposed streamlining measure of
providing regulatory authority for the EPA or a delegated agency to
issue synthetic minor limitations for GHG in areas subject to a PSD
FIP for GHGs or other streamlining measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's SIP revision?

    This section summarizes EPA's analysis of the changes being
proposed for inclusion into the Florida SIP. Chapter 62-210, F.A.C.
entitled ``Stationary Sources--General Requirements,'' contains
definitions of terms (at Rule 62-210.200, F.A.C.) used in Chapter 62-
212, F.A.C., as well as other stationary source rules. Chapter 62-210,
F.A.C., also establishes general permitting, public notice, reporting,
and permit application requirements. Chapter 62-212, F.A.C., entitled
``Stationary Sources--Preconstruction Review'' contains specific
preconstruction permitting requirements for various types of air
construction permits, including minor source permits, PSD permits,
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permits, and PAL permits. Rule
62-212.400, F.A.C. contains the State's PSD preconstruction review
program as required under part C of title I of the CAA. The PSD program
applies to major stationary sources or modifications constructing in
areas that are designated as attainment or unclassifiable with respect
to the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The current
changes to Chapter 62- 210, F.A.C., which EPA is now proposing to
approve into the Florida SIP, were submitted to update the existing
Florida regulations to be consistent with the regulation of GHG-
emitting sources under the Federal PSD permitting program.

A. Florida's PSD Permitting Program

    Florida's NSR permitting program is based on the application of the
term ``PSD pollutant'' at Rule 62-210.200(234), F.A.C. Florida defines
``PSD pollutant'' \21\ as any pollutant

listed as having a ``significant emission rate'' as defined in Rule 62-
210.200. Florida references the term ``PSD pollutant'' within many key
NSR definitions in Rule 62-210.200, F.A.C., and its PSD rule, 62-
212.400, F.A.C., to trigger program applicability, including:
``Baseline Actual Emissions,'' ``Major Modification,'' ``Major
Stationary Source,'' ``Net Emissions Increase,'' and ``Projected Actual
Emissions.'' The applicability of Florida's SIP-approved PSD program
depends on whether a new ``major stationary source'' or ``major
modification'' of any existing major stationary source will result in
significant emissions of a ``PSD pollutant.'' The terms ``major
stationary source'' and ``major modification'' defined in SIP Rule 62-
210.200, F.A.C. references the term ``PSD pollutant.'' As mentioned
above, Florida indicated in its October 1, 2010, correspondence to EPA
that its PSD permitting program was limited to those pollutants
identified in the State as a ``PSD pollutant,'' a term that does not
include GHG. Florida went on to convey that because GHGs were not
included in the SIP definition of ``significant emissions rate,'' they
were not deemed qualified as a ``PSD pollutant(s)'' under Florida's PSD
program. Absent a corrective SIP revision, FDEP did not have the
authority to apply PSD requirements to GHG emitting sources as they
became ``subject to regulation'' under the CAA on January 2, 2011.
Florida did not make its December 22, 2010, GHG corrective SIP revision
deadline resulting in EPA issuing a finding of failure to submit on
December 29, 2010, and the GHG PSD FIP on December 30, 2010, to ensure
that GHG-emitting sources in Florida would have an available permitting
authority (i.e., EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Florida adopted into its SIP the term ``PSD pollutant''
(which references significant emissions rate) to replace the term
``NSR Pollutant'' at Rule 62-210.200, F.A.C. as part of its February
3, 2006, SIP submission to adopt the 2002 NSR Reform permitting
provisions. See 73 FR 36435 (June 27, 2008). FDEP provided an
equivalency demonstration establishing the definitions of ``PSD
pollutant'' and ``significant emissions rate'' as being equivalent
to the Federal definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' since they
included all pollutants for which a NAAQS had been promulgated thus
far, all precursors for such pollutants which had thus far been
identified by the Administrator, all pollutants subject to standards
promulgated under section 111 of the Act, and all pollutants thus
far regulated under the Act. Florida's definitions however lacked
the catch-all phrase ``subject to regulation,'' which is part of the
Federal definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' Florida explained
that any pollutant or precursor that needed to be identified as a
PSD pollutant in the future, if a new pollutant became ``subject to
regulation,'' would be adopted into the SIP soon after it became
regulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Florida's Revision to PSD pollutant

    Under EPA's PSD program, ``regulated NSR pollutant'' is defined as
several categories of pollutants (including, in general, NAAQS
pollutants and precursors, pollutants regulated under CAA section 111
New Source Performance Standards, Class I or II substances regulated
under title VI of the CAA) and a catch-all category, ``[a]ny pollutant
that otherwise is ``subject to regulation'' under the Act.'' E.g., 40
CFR 52.21(b)(50)(iv). As part of the mechanism to implement the GHG
tailoring approach for PSD, EPA promulgated a definition for this
catch-all phrase ``subject to regulation'' \22\ in the GHG Tailoring
Rule as found within ``regulated NSR pollutant'' (which in turn is part
of EPA's definition for ``major stationary source'' and ``major
modification,'' central to PSD applicability). Therefore, the term
``subject to regulation'' as referenced in the definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(iv) triggers the
circumstances under which GHGs are a ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' In
addition to defining ``subject to regulation'' for the PSD program, the
GHG Tailoring Rule revised the term ``regulated NSR pollutant'' at (40
CFR 52.21(b)(50)) to reference ``subject to regulation'' at 40 CFR.
52.21(b)(49); and define (at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21) the terms
``greenhouse gases,'' and ``tpy CO2 equivalent emissions.''
The 2010 rule also specified the methodology for calculating an
emissions increase for GHG, the applicable thresholds for GHG emissions
subject to PSD and the schedule for when the applicability thresholds
would take effect. See 75 FR at 31606-31607.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EPA defined the phrase ``subject to regulation'' so that
the GHGs emitted by sources that fall below the thresholds or scope
established in Steps 1 and 2 are not treated as ``subject to
regulation,'' and therefore do not trigger PSD for the sources that
emit them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Florida's December 19, 2013, SIP submission revises the definition
of ``PSD pollutant'' at 62-210.200 to incorporate the term ``regulated
NSR pollutant'' as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50), which in turn
references the term ``subject to regulation'' (defined at 40 CFR
52.21(b)(49)) at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(iv). This SIP revision became
effective on October 23, 2013. Florida's revision triggers the
circumstances under which GHGs are a ``PSD pollutant'' under the
State's PSD program. In relevant part, Florida's revised definition of
``PSD pollutant'' provides:

62-210.200--PSD pollutant--(a) Any pollutant listed as having a
significant emission rate as defined in Rule 62-210.200, F.A.C.; and
(b) Any Regulated NSR Pollutant as defined at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)
and as adopted and incorporated by reference at Rule 62-204.800,
F.A.C.

C. Incorporation by Reference

    As Florida mentions in its December 19, 2013, SIP submission, its
amendment to ``PSD pollutant'' to IBR the phrase ``Any Regulated NSR
Pollutant'' as defined at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50) does not, in and of
itself, provide Florida the authority to regulate GHGs in its PSD
program. Florida's State Rule 62-204.800, F.A.C., IBR the Federal Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) (including 40 CFR 52.21) into the Florida
regulations.\23\ To ``activate'' the applicability of a Federal rule
within Florida's regulations, the state references Rule 62-204.800,
F.A.C. within the state regulations (such as 62-210.200).\24\ The
previous IBR of Federal provisions at 40 CFR 52.21 into State Rule 62-
204.800, F.A.C. predated EPA's adoption of the GHG Tailoring Rule and
the Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule. In order for the IBR of EPA's updated
definition of ``Any Regulated NSR Pollutant'' at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50) to
be applicable in Florida's regulations, FDEP amended State Rule
62.204.800, F.A.C., to IBR 40 CFR 52.21, Subpart A as of July 1, 2011,
and July 12, 2012. This amendment to Rule 62-204.800 became state
effective on December 17, 2013.\25\ This change incorporates into the
F.A.C. the applicable GHG regulations established in the GHG Tailoring
Rule and the Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule. Therefore, Florida's amendment
to the definition of ``PSD pollutant'' at Rule 62-210.200, F.A.C.,
provides Florida the authority to

regulate GHG under the PSD program and establishes in the Florida SIP
the thresholds for GHG permitting. These changes also IBR the GHG PAL
provisions established in the July 12, 2012, Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule
allowing GHG PALs to be established on a CO2e basis in
addition to the already available mass-basis and allow a GHG-only
source to apply for a GHG PAL while still maintaining its minor source
status.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ When FDEP incorporates by reference a Federal regulation,
any subsequent change to the Federal CFR is not automatically
incorporated into Florida's rules. See Section 120.54(1)(i)1., F.S.
(``A rule may incorporate material by reference but only as the
material exists on the date the rule is adopted.'').
    \24\ The incorporation by reference of the CFR (such as 40 CFR
52.21) at 62.204.800 does not by itself make those regulations
applicable within Florida's SIP regulations; it's the actual
reference to State Rule 62.204.800 within Florida regulations that
makes the Federal regulation applicable. In other words, Rule 62-
204.800, F.A.C., is the mechanism Florida uses to make specific
Federal requirement applicable within SIP-approved regulations.
    \25\ Florida's Rule 62-204.800, F.A.C., is a state law.
Therefore the amendment to update the IBR date for 40 CFR 52.21 at
62-204.800 is not part of the State's December 19, 2013, SIP
revision. However, as noted, without it the reference to 40 C.F.R.
52.21(b)(50) in the definition of ``PSD pollutant'' would be
referring to an older version of 40 CFR 52.21 which did not include
the GHG Tailoring Rule's regulatory amendments for regulated NSR
pollutant and the inclusion of ``subject to regulation'' (nor the
Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule).
    \26\ EPA adopted the PAL regulations into the Florida SIP on
June 27, 2008, at Rule 62-212.720, F.A.C., as part of the State's
February 3, 2006, SIP submission to adopt the 2002 NSR Reform
permitting provisions. See 73 FR 36435.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. GHG PSD Permit Transition

    As explained in today's proposed notice, Florida is subject to the
FIP for PSD permitting of GHG emissions. EPA remains the sole PSD
permitting authority for GHG-emitting sources in Florida until EPA
finalizes its proposed approval of the December 19, 2013, SIP revision
into the Florida SIP. EPA proposes that upon finalization of Florida's
GHG SIP revision, EPA will rescind the GHG PSD FIP for Florida at 40
CFR 52.37.
    As part of Florida's December 19, 2013, SIP revision, Florida
included a GHG PSD Permit Transition Plan. See GHG Transition Plan in
Appendix B of Florida's December 19, 2013, submission in the Docket for
today's proposed rulemaking using Docket ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0760.
Specifically, under FDEP's Permit Transition Plan, FDEP would exercise
its authority to administer and enforce GHG PSD permits issued by EPA
under its FIP to sources located in the State of Florida. This would
include authority for the general administration of these existing
permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent PSD
permit actions relating to such permits including, but not limited to,
modifications, amendments, or revisions of any nature, and the
authority to enforce such permits. Pursuant to the criteria under
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the CAA, we have determined that Florida has
the authority, personnel, and funding to implement the PSD program for
GHGs for existing EPA-issued permits. Therefore, EPA proposes that
concurrent with EPA's approval of Florida's GHG PSD program into the
SIP, EPA will transfer existing EPA-issued GHG permits for Florida
sources to FDEP for administration and enforcement. To date, EPA has
issued two final PSD permits and has five pending PSD applications in
various stages of processing. See Appendix B, Attachment 2 of Florida's
December 19, 2013, SIP revision.\27\ EPA will provide a list of all
EPA-issued permits and a copy of each permit record (if requested) to
FDEP prior to the effective date of the final SIP approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Since the date of Florida's GHG Permit Transition Plan, EPA
Region 4 issued a second GHG permit on December 18, 2013 for a total
of two GHG issued permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to promote an orderly transition of the GHG PSD program
from the EPA to Florida, the efficient use of Florida's and EPA's
resources, and certainty for the regulated community and the public,
and consistent with FDEP's proposed GHG PSD permit transition plan, EPA
proposes to retain PSD permit implementation authority (under 40 CFR
52.21) for pending applications, draft permits, and final permits for
which final agency action has not been taken or for which all
administrative and judicial appeals processes pursuant to 40 CFR 124
(including any associated remand actions) have not been completed by
the effective date of EPA's final action to approve FDEP's SIP
submittal. FDEP would assume full responsibility for the administration
and implementation of such GHG PSD permits immediately upon
notification from EPA that all administrative and judicial appeals
processes and any associated remand actions have been completed or
concluded for any such permit application. Applicants with pending GHG
PSD permit applications before EPA, including those for which EPA has
proposed draft permits or issued final permits that have not yet become
effective or have not yet completed the appeals processes pursuant to
40 CFR part 124, may elect to withdraw their applications from EPA and
resubmit to FDEP for review and processing. Upon the effective date of
EPA's final action to approve the SIP submittal, FDEP will immediately
assume full responsibility for new GHG PSD applications for Florida
sources. As such, new applications will be submitted to and processed
by FDEP's Division of Air Resource Management.

IV. Proposed Actions

    Florida's December 19, 2013, SIP submission amends the State's
definition of ``PSD pollutant'' to provide Florida with the authority
to regulate GHG under its PSD program, to establish PSD applicability
thresholds for GHG emissions at the same emissions thresholds and in
the same timeframes as those specified by EPA in the GHG Tailoring
Rule, and to provide for the implementation of GHG PALs on a
CO2e basis. In today's action, pursuant to section 110 of
the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve these changes into the Florida
SIP.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The GHG Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V program,
which requires operating permits for existing sources. However,
today's action does not affect Florida's title V program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA is proposing that upon finalization of Florida's
GHG SIP revision, EPA will rescind the Florida GHG FIP at 40 CFR 52.37.
EPA notes that finalization of this portion of today's proposal may
follow our finalized approval of the SIP revisions via a separate
Administrator-signed action. EPA remains the sole PSD permitting
authority for GHG-emitting sources in Florida until EPA finalizes its
proposed approval of the December 19, 2013, SIP revision into the
Florida SIP.
    EPA's approval of Florida's December 19, 2013, SIP revision
includes approval of FDEP's GHG PSD Permit Transition Plan, under which
EPA will transfer existing EPA-issued GHG permits for Florida sources
to Florida for administration and enforcement. EPA proposes to retain
PSD permit implementation authority (under 40 CFR 52.21) for pending
GHG permit applications, draft permits, and final permits for which
final agency action has not been taken or for which all administrative
and judicial appeals processes pursuant to 40 CFR part 124 (including
any associated remand actions) have not been completed by the effective
date of EPA's final action to approve Florida's SIP submittal. Florida
would assume full responsibility for the administration and
implementation of such GHG PSD permits immediately upon notification
from EPA that all administrative and judicial appeals processes and any
associated remand actions have been completed or concluded for any such
permit application.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's December
19, 2013, SIP revision is consistent with EPA's PSD regulations for
GHG-emitting sources as promulgated in the GHG Tailoring Rule, Step 3
GHG Tailoring Rule and section 110 of the CAA. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve the GHG PSD permitting revision into the Florida
SIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions,

EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed actions merely approve
state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, these proposed actions:
     are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Greenhouse Gas,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: December 23, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-00041 Filed 1-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49071-49072]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22907]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form N-17f-2, SEC File No. 270-317, OMB Control No. 3235-0360

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350l et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget a request for extension of the
previously approved collection of information discussed below.
    Form N-17f-2 (17 CFR 274.220) under the Investment Company Act is
entitled ``Certificate of Accounting of Securities and Similar
Investments in the Custody of Management Investment Companies.'' Form
N-17f-2 is the cover sheet for the accountant examination certificates
filed under rule 17f-2 (17 CFR 270.17f-2) by registered management
investment companies (``funds'') maintaining custody of securities or
other investments. Form N-17f-2 facilitates the filing of the
accountant's examination certificates prepared under rule 17f-2. The
use of the form allows the certificates to be filed electronically, and
increases the accessibility of the examination certificates to both the
Commission's examination staff and interested investors by ensuring
that the certificates are filed under the proper Commission file number
and the correct name of a fund.
    Commission staff estimates that it takes: (i) On average 1.25 hours
of fund accounting personnel at a total cost of $255 to prepare each
Form N-17f-2; \1\ and (ii) .75 hours of administrative assistant time
at a total cost of $57 to file the Form N-17f-2 with the Commission.\2\
Approximately 194 funds currently file Form N-17f-2 with the
Commission. Commission staff estimates that on average each fund files
Form N-17f-2 three times annually for a total annual hourly burden per
fund of approximately 6 hours at a total cost of $918. The total annual
hour burden for Form N-17f-2 is therefore estimated to be approximately
1,164 hours. Based on the total annual costs per fund listed above, the
total cost of Form N-17f-2's collection of information requirements is
estimated to be approximately $178,092.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 1.25 x
$204 (fund senior accountant's hourly rate) = $255.
    \2\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: .75 x
$76 (administrative assistant hourly rate) = $57.
    \3\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 194
funds x $918 (total annual cost per fund) = $178,092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. Complying with the collections of
information required by Form N-17f-2 is mandatory for those funds that
maintain custody of their own assets. Responses will not be kept
confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to: [email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Issued: October 18, 2017.
 Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22907 Filed 10-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11152-11153]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04317]

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

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN

Sunshine Act; Meeting

TIME AND DATE: March 3, 2022, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern
time.

PLACE: This meeting will be accessible via conference call and
screensharing. Any interested person may call<PHONE_NUMBER> (US toll
free),<PHONE_NUMBER> (US toll free), +1<PHONE_NUMBER> (US toll), or +1
669-900-6833 (US toll), Conference ID 920 2493 9329, to participate in
the meeting. The website to participate via Zoom meeting and
screenshare is https://kellen.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJYtde2hrTIpGN1UxVfSCrLBaqt3I-sDBwzt.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board
of Directors (the ``Board'') will continue its work in developing and
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement. The
subject matter of the meeting will include:

Agenda

I. Welcome and Call to Order--UCR Board Chair

    The UCR Board Chair will welcome attendees, call the meeting to
order, call roll for the Board, confirm the presence of a quorum, and
facilitate self-introductions.

II. Verification of Publication of Meeting Notice--UCR Executive
Director

    The UCR Executive Director will verify publication of the meeting
notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact list via
email followed by subsequent publication of the notice in the Federal
Register.

III. Review and Approval of Board Agenda--UCR Board Chair

For Discussion and Possible Action

    The proposed Agenda will be reviewed, and the Board will consider
adoption.
Ground Rules
    [rtarr8] Board actions taken only in designated areas on agenda.

IV. Approval of Board Minutes of the January 27, 2022 UCR Board
Meeting--UCR Board Chair

For Discussion and Possible Action

    Draft Minutes from the January 27, 2022 UCR Board meeting will be
reviewed. The Board will consider action to approve.

V. Report of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)--
FMCSA Representative

    The FMCSA will provide a report on any relevant activity.

VI. Chief Legal Officer Report--UCR Chief Legal Officer

    The UCR Chief Legal Officer will report on matters of interest to
the UCR Plan.

VII. Engagement Letter Between the UCR Plan and the Bradley Law Firm--
UCR Executive Director and UCR Board Chair

For Discussion and Possible Board Action

    A general engagement letter between the UCR Plan and the Bradley
Law Firm, covering the broad scope of legal issues directed to Alex
Leath by the UCR Plan in calendar year 2022, will be presented to the
UCR Board for its consideration and approval.

VIII. Subcommittee Reports

Audit Subcommittee--UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair

A. UCR Compliance Snapshot--UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair
    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will review audit compliance rates
for the states for registration years 2020, 2021, and 2022 and will
include compliance percentages for Focused Anomaly Reviews (FARs),
retreat audits, and registration compliance percentages as mandated by
the UCR Board. A new element has been added that focuses on the states'
enforcement and citations actually issued versus the ``Should Have
Been'' (``SHB'') road-stops that were not cited. The new feature ranks
the states based on citation percentages.
B. Discuss the New IRP and IFTA Reports Available on the NRS--UCR Audit
Subcommittee Chair and DSL Transportation Services, Inc. (DSL)
    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair and DSL will discuss the value of
following up on the Title 49 CFR 392.2 violations. The discussion will
highlight the financial value to the states by vetting these companies
for UCR compliance, commercial registration, IFTA, intrastate,
interstate operating authority and safety compliance. Title 49 CFR
392.2 requires commercial motor vehicles to operate in accordance with
the laws, ordinances, and regulations of the jurisdiction in which they
are operating within.
C. Review 2022 Kansas SHB Report--Audit Subcommittee Chair, Verna
Jackson, and DSL
    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair, supported by Verna Jackson and
DSL, will explain the Kansas review process. The discussion will focus
on the value of following up on 49 CFR 392.2 violators to ensure both
UCR and safety compliance, and the correlation between various NRS
tools available to the states.

Finance Subcommittee--UCR Finance Subcommittee Chair

A. Redemption of Certificates of Deposit (CDs)--UCR Finance
Subcommittee Chair and UCR Depository Manager
For Discussion and Possible Board Action
    The UCR Finance Subcommittee Chair and UCR Depository Manager will
discuss the opportunity to redeem up to two separate CDs prior to
maturity and use the proceeds to purchase U.S. Treasury Bills which
have higher income earning potential than CDs do. The Board may take
action to redeem the CDs and use the proceeds to purchase U.S. Treasury
Bills.
B. Fee Recommendation for 2023 Registration Year--UCR Comment--UCR
Finance Subcommittee Chair and UCR Depository Manager
    The UCR Finance Subcommittee Chair and the UCR Depository Manager
will provide an update on the issuance of a comment to the FMCSA by UCR
resulting from the Notice of Preliminary Rulemaking published on
January 24, 2022. The comment updated the fee calculations by using
more current data

than was used in the original recommendation submitted to the Secretary
of The U.S. Department of Transportation and the FMCSA in August 2021.

Education and Training Subcommittee--UCR Education and Training
Subcommittee Chair

A. Update on Current and Future Training Initiatives--UCR Education and
Training Subcommittee Chair
    The UCR Education and Training Subcommittee Chair and the UCR
Operations Manager will provide an update on the current and planned
future training initiatives for the UCR Plan.

IX. Contractor Reports--UCR Executive Director

 UCR Executive Director's Report

    The UCR Executive Director will provide a report covering recent
activity for the UCR Plan.

 DSL Transportation Services, Inc.

    DSL Transportation Services, Inc. will report on the latest data
from the FARs program, discuss motor carrier inspection results, pilot
projects and other matters.

 Seikosoft

    Seikosoft will provide an update on recent/new activity related to
the National Registration System.

 UCR Administrator Report (Kellen)

    The UCR staff will provide a management report covering recent
activity for the Depository, Operations, and Communications.

X. Other Business--UCR Board Chair

    The UCR Board Chair will call for any other items Board members
would like to discuss.

XI. Adjournment--UCR Board Chair

    The UCR Board Chair will adjourn the meeting.
    This agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time,
February 23, 2022 at: https://plan.ucr.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

Alex B. Leath,
Chief Legal Officer, Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
[FR Doc. 2022-04317 Filed 2-24-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-YL-P