List of Documents Submitted by the State of Colorado    * December 31, 2012, Letter from Christopher E. Urbina, MD, MPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer, Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment to Carl Daly, Air Program Director, U.S. EPA Region 8, Denver, CO.  Certification that the states meets the requirements of Clean Air Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.      * State of Colorado Provisions to Meet the Requirements of Section 110(a) (1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 111 (Monday, June 12, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26888-26894]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12080]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 383

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0346]
RIN 2126-AB98

Commercial Learner's Permit Validity

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

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) to allow States to issue a commercial learner's
permit (CLP) with an expiration date of up to one year from the date of
initial issuance. CLPs issued for shorter periods may be renewed but
the total period of time between the date of initial issuance and the
expiration of the renewed CLP could not exceed one year. This proposed
amendment would replace the current regulations, which require the
States to issue CLPs initially for no more than 180 days, with the
possibility of an additional 180-day renewal at the State's discretion.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before August 11,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2016-0346 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments, including collection of information comments for the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Selden Fritschner, CDL Division,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
NPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0346), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each section applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2016-0346, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.
Confidential Business Information
    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is customarily not made available to the general
public by the submitter. Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBI is
eligible for protection from public disclosure. If you have CBI that is
relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly
designate the submitted comments as CBI. Accordingly, please mark each
page of your submission as ``confidential'' or ``CBI.'' Submissions
designated as CBI and meeting the definition noted above will not be
placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Any commentary that
FMCSA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2016-0346, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the

Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

D. Waiver of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act)
(Pub. L. 114-94), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or conduct a negotiated rulemaking ``if a
proposed rule is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule''
(49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(1)). As this proposed rule is not likely to result
in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to
issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

E. Comments on the Collection of Information

    If you have comments on the collection of information discussed in
this NPRM, you must send those comments to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs at OMB. To ensure that your comments are
received on time, the preferred methods of submission are by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(include docket number ``FMCSA-2016-0346''
and ``Attention: Desk Officer for FMCSA, DOT'' in the subject line of
the email) or fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. An alternative, though slower,
method is by U.S. Mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, FMCSA, DOT.

II. Executive Summary

Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions

    This NPRM would allow States to issue a CLP for no more than one
year from the date of initial issuance, with or without renewal within
that one-year period. After one year from the date of initial issuance,
a CLP, or renewed CLP, would no longer be valid. Accordingly, if the
applicant does not obtain a CDL within one year from the date the CLP
was first issued, he/she must reapply for a CLP. This approach would
replace the current requirements of Sec. Sec.  383.25(c) and
383.73(a)(2)(iii), under which a CLP is valid for no more than 180 days
from the date of issuance, with an option for the State to renew the
CLP for an additional 180 days without requiring the general and
endorsement knowledge tests, as applicable. The proposed change
provides an improved process for CLP issuance that FMCSA believes will
save time and money for both States and CLP applicants, as discussed
below, without affecting safety.

Benefits and Costs

    The primary entities affected by this proposed rule would be State
Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) and CLP holders. FMCSA is unable to
estimate the number of SDLAs that may choose to issue a CLP that is
valid for up to one year or the number of CLP holders that would be
affected. Nonetheless, potential benefits of this proposed rule would
include reduced costs to CLP holders, including reductions in the
opportunity cost of time that, in the absence of this proposed rule,
would be spent by CLP holders traveling to and from an SDLA office and
at an SDLA office, renewing a CLP that is valid for no more than 180
days. SDLAs that choose under this proposed rule to issue a CLP that is
valid for up to one year may benefit from the elimination of costs
associated with processing renewals of CLPs. FMCSA does not expect
there would be any costs imposed upon CLP holders as a result of this
rule. Under this proposed rule SDLAs that choose to offer a CLP that is
valid for up to one year may incur costs related to information
technology (IT) system upgrades that may be necessary.
    Although potential reductions in CLP renewal fees collected by
SDLAs may appear to be a cost of this proposed rule to SDLAs, and the
commensurate potential savings to CLP holders of CLP renewal fees may
appear to be a benefit to CLP holders, any such changes in renewal fee
amounts are best classified as transfer payments and not as a cost to
SDLAs (in the form of forgone fee revenue) or as a benefit to CLP
holders (in the form of CLP renewal fees no longer expended). If an
SDLA were to increase its fee for the issuance of a CLP in order to
offset any reduction in revenue resulting from the elimination of CLP
renewals and associated fees, a transfer would occur from those CLP
holders who, in the absence of the rule, would not have renewed their
CLP to CLP holders who would have renewed their CLP.

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is based on the broad authority of the Commercial
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA), as amended, codified at 49
U.S.C. chapter 313 and implemented by 49 CFR parts 383 and 384. The
CMVSA provides that ``[a]fter consultation with the States, the
Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations on minimum
uniform standards for the issuance of commercial drivers' licenses and
learner's permits by the States . . .'' (49 U.S.C. 31308).

IV. Background

    On September 1, 2015, the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) requested an exemption from Sec.  383.25(c) to allow a CLP to be
issued for one year. Currently the regulation provides that the CLP
must be valid for no more than 180 days from the date of issuance.
However, under Sec. Sec.  383.25(c) and 383.73(a)(2)(iii), the State
may renew the CLP for an additional 180 days without requiring the CLP
holder to retake the general and endorsement knowledge tests. In its
request for the exemption, ODOT stated that ``[a]dding the bureaucratic
requirement for a CLP holder to visit a DMV office and pay a fee in
order to get a second six months of CLP validity will add unnecessary
workload to offices already stretched to the limit.''
    On November 27, 2015, FMCSA published notice of ODOT's application
for exemption and requested public comments (80 FR 74199). The Agency
received 10 comments in response to the proposed exemption. The Alabama
Law Enforcement Agency; Colorado Department of Revenue CDL Unit; New
York Department of Motor Vehicles; Oregon Trucking Associations, Inc.;
and two individuals supported the exemption. The Commercial Vehicle
Training Association (CVTA) and three individuals opposed the
exemption.
    In a notice published on April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19703), FMCSA stated
that the exemption requested by the ODOT would maintain a level of
safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be
achieved without the exemption, as required by 49 CFR 381.305(a). The
Agency therefore approved ODOT's application for exemption and allowed
all SDLAs nationwide to use the exemption at their discretion. However,
the exemption did not change the language of Sec.  383.25(c) and the
exemption remains effective for 2 years from the date of approval,
expiring on April 5, 2018. Subsequent to

FMCSA's approval of ODOT's application, the Agency amended its Notice
of Final Disposition to also include exemption from the parallel
requirements of Sec.  373.73(a)(2)(iii) (81 FR 86067 (November 29,
2016)).

V. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking

Requiring States To Issue a CLP for No More Than One Year, With or
Without Renewal

    This proposed rule would amend Sec. Sec.  383.25 (c) and
383.73(a)(2)(iii) to allow States to issue a CLP for no more than one
year, without requiring the CLP holder to retake the general and
endorsement knowledge tests. The Agency proposes a maximum period of
CLP validity of one year, rather than the 360-day maximum currently
permitted under Sec. Sec.  383.25(c) and 383.73(a)(2)(iii). The
principal reason for this proposed change, as noted above and discussed
further below, is to increase efficiency in the licensing system and to
reduce costs to drivers and administrative burdens to SDLAs. FMCSA is
also proposing the rule, however, in order to account for the fact
that, in practice, some States allow a ``grace period'' between the
initial CLP issuance period of 180 days and the 180-day renewal period
currently allowed, thus resulting in a total period of time which may
exceed 360 days from the time of initial issuance of the CLP. States
that choose to issue a CLP for an initial period of less than one year
may provide for renewal, as long as the renewed CLP is not valid for
more than one year from the date of initial issuance of the original
CLP. For example, under the proposed change, a State could issue a CLP
that is valid for nine months. If that State chose to allow the CLP
holder to renew the CLP, the renewal could not be valid for longer than
three months, up to a total period of one year from the date of initial
issuance.
    The Agency invites States and other interested parties to identify
potential costs (e.g., necessary changes in CLP-related IT systems),
savings and process efficiencies that may result from the proposed
change, along with any supporting data.

VI. Section-By-Section Analysis

    FMCSA proposes to amend part 383 in the following ways:

Section 383.25 Commercial Learner's Permit (CLP)

    In Sec.  383.25(c) FMCSA makes minor changes to the text and
replaces ``180 days'' with ``one year'' to reflect the proposed
extended period of time that a CLP can be valid before a CLP holder
would have to re-test. FMCSA also provides for renewal of CLPs that
have been issued for a period of less than a year.

Section 383.73 State Procedures

    In Sec.  383.73(a)(2)(iii) FMCSA makes minor changes to the text
and replaces ``180 days'' with ``one year'' to clarify in the
instructions to States the proposed extended period of time that a CLP
can be valid before a CLP holder would have to re-test. FMCSA also
provides for renewal of CLPs that have been issued for a period of less
than a year.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(4) of that Order. It is also not significant within
the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5
dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). Accordingly, the
Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under these Orders.
This proposed rule would amend existing procedures and practices
governing the issuance of commercial learner's permits.
Costs and Benefits
    This proposed rule allows States to issue a CLP that is valid for
no more than one year from the date of initial issuance, with or
without renewal during that one-year period. This approach would
replace the current requirements, as set forth in Sec. Sec.  383.25(c)
and 383.73(a)(2)(iii), which require that a CLP must be valid for no
more than 180 days from the date of issuance, with an additional 180-
day renewal possible at the State's discretion.
    The primary entities affected by this proposed rule would be SDLAs
and CLP holders. FMCSA is unable to estimate how many of the 51 SDLAs
may choose under this proposed rule to issue a CLP that is valid for up
to one year. The number of SDLAs that have thus far chosen to issue a
CLP that is valid for one year from the date of issuance without
renewal, consistent with the exemption to Sec.  383.25(c) issued on
April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19703), is unknown.\1\ FMCSA seeks any information
available in this regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division (DMV) of the
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) currently offers a CLP
that is valid for one year and cannot be renewed. See https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/pages/driverid/cdlget.aspx (accessed
February 9, 2017). ODOT requested the limited exemption from the CLP
requirements in 49 CFR 383.25(c), which FMCSA issued on April 5,
2016, and which is applicable to all SDLAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA estimates that approximately 476,000 CLPs are issued annually
nationwide. This estimate is based primarily on information from the
Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS), a nationwide
computer system that enables SDLAs to ensure that each commercial
driver has only one driver's license and one complete driver record.
Data provided by the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA) for the three calendar years 2013 through 2015
indicate that approximately 476,000 new Master Pointer Records (MPRs)
were added annually to CDLIS during that time.\2\ An MPR is typically
added to CDLIS within 10 days of issuing a CLP to a driver who is
believed to have never held one previously, or when a non-commercial
driver is convicted of a violation in a commercial motor vehicle (CMV).
FMCSA believes that the number of MPRs added to CDLIS for drivers
without a CLP or CDL but that were convicted of a violation while
driving a CMV is very small. To the extent this may occur, the 476,000
value noted above may slightly overestimate the actual number of CLPs
issued annually. Conversely, due to certain record retention
requirements of CDLIS, it may be possible that a CLP applicant already
could have an MPR present in CDLIS (from a previous CDL or CLP that was
held by that applicant and for which the MPR created remains in CDLIS
for some time after the CLP or CDL has expired or otherwise is no
longer in force). To the extent this occurs, the 476,000 value noted
above may slightly underestimate the actual number of CLPs issued
annually. Despite these potential sources of minor uncertainty, FMCSA
believes that the estimate of approximately 476,000 CLPs currently
issued annually nationwide is

a reasonable one. The Agency specifically invites comment on the
accuracy of this estimate. Of the estimated 476,000 CLPs issued
annually, there is no readily available source of information regarding
how many are renewed. We therefore seek comment and supporting
information regarding the number of CLPs issued annually nationwide
that are currently renewed. Because the Agency cannot currently
quantify the number of CLPs issued annually that are renewed, nor the
number of SDLAs that would choose to issue a CLP that is valid for up
to one year from the date of issuance, FMCSA is unable to quantify the
number of CLP holders who would be affected by this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This estimate excludes data for the month of October 2015,
which appeared to be an anomalous outlier figure of about twice the
typical monthly figure for the 35 other months during the three year
time period of 2013 through 2015 for which data was obtained. It is
believed that this may be due in part to the requirement under MAP-
21 Section 32305 (Commercial Driver's License Program) that States
must be in compliance with all CDL requirements by September 30,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although FMCSA is unable to quantify the number of SDLAs that may
choose to issue a CLP that is valid for up to one year or the number of
CLP holders that would be affected by this proposed rule, there are
certain types of benefits, costs, and transfers that may occur as a
result of this rule.
    The potential benefits of this proposed rule would include reduced
costs to CLP holders, including reductions in the opportunity cost of
time that in the absence of this proposed rule would be spent by CLP
holders traveling to and from an SDLA office and at an SDLA office,
renewing a CLP that is valid for no more than 180 days. Though
potential savings to CLP holders of CLP renewal fees may also appear to
be a benefit of this proposed rule, any such changes in renewal fee
amounts are best classified as a transfer, which is discussed further
below. SDLAs may also realize potential benefits. For example, for
SDLAs that chose under this proposed rule to issue a CLP that is valid
for up to one year, costs associated with processing renewals of CLPs
would be eliminated. However, there may be transfer payments as
discussed below. FMCSA seeks comment and any supporting information
regarding the potential benefits of this proposed rule.
    FMCSA does not expect there to be any costs imposed upon CLP
holders as a result of this proposed rule. However, there may be
transfer payments as discussed below. The potential costs of this
proposed rule to SDLAs include information technology (IT) system
upgrade costs for those SDLAs that choose to issue a CLP that is valid
for up to one year. Such IT system upgrades may include software
programming changes necessary to reflect a change from a CLP that is
valid for up to 180 days to a CLP that is valid for up to one year. The
State of Colorado noted the potential for such IT system costs to SDLAs
in its comments to the November 27, 2015, notice of ODOT's application
for exemption (80 FR 74199), as discussed in the Agency's grant of
application for exemption published on April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19703).
Under the proposed rule, the decision by an SDLA to issue a CLP that is
valid for up to one year would be discretionary. Accordingly, the
Agency expects that SDLAs will choose to make this change only to the
extent that such IT system upgrade costs would be less than the reduced
costs associated with no longer having to process renewals of CLPs,
thus resulting in a net benefit to the SDLA.
    Finally, though potential reductions in CLP renewal fees collected
by SDLAs may appear to be a cost of this proposed rule to SDLAs, any
such changes in renewal fee amounts are best classified as a transfer,
which is discussed further below. FMCSA seeks comment on supporting
information regarding the potential costs of this proposed rule.
    In addition to the potential benefits and costs of the rule
discussed above, there are also certain transfer payment effects that
may occur as a result of this rule. Transfer payments are monetary
payments from one group to another that do not affect total resources
available to society, and therefore do not represent actual costs or
benefits to society. Because of the potential elimination of CLP
renewal fees, and the potential for changes to CLP issuance fees, there
are transfer effects that may result from this rule. These potential
transfer effects include a transfer of CLP renewal fee amounts from
SDLAs to CLP holders, and a transfer of CLP renewal fee amounts from
one set of CLP holders to another set of CLP holders. In cases where an
SDLA maintains the same fee for issuance of a CLP, a transfer would
occur from SDLAs to CLP holders. This transfer represents the total
amount of CLP renewal fees that in the absence of this proposed rule
CLP holders renewing their CLP would have paid SDLAs.\3\ Such
reductions in CLP renewal fee amounts to SDLAs are properly classified
as a transfer, rather than as a cost to SDLAs (in the form of forgone
fee revenue) or as a benefit to CLP holders (in the form of CLP renewal
fees no longer expended). There is no aggregate change in social
welfare resulting from this impact, as it is a simple transfer of value
from one set of entities to another. Alternatively, in cases where an
SDLA were to increase its fee for the issuance of a CLP in order to
offset any reduction in revenue resulting from the elimination of CLP
renewals and associated fees, a transfer would occur from those CLP
holders who in the baseline would not have renewed their CLP to CLP
holders who in the baseline would have renewed their CLP.\4\ Here too
there is no aggregate change in social welfare resulting from this
impact, as again it is a simple transfer of value from one set of
entities to another. In any case, the extent to which SDLAs that choose
under this proposed rule to issue a CLP that is valid for up to one
year may increase their fee for issuance of a CLP is unknown.\5\ The
incentive for an SDLA to do so, however, is likely low due in part to
the fact that CLP renewal fees are expected to be a relatively small
proportion of the overall fee revenue collected by any given SDLA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In some States, no fee is charged for CLP renewal, and
therefore this type of transfer would not occur if CLP renewals were
eliminated.
    \4\ As an example of this type of transfer effect, consider a
scenario in which in the baseline 10,000 CLPs are issued annually by
a State. Of these 10,000 CLP holders, assume half (5,000) renew
their CLP, and the remaining half do not. Finally, assume the fee
for initial issuance of a CLP in this State is $25, and that the fee
for renewal of a CLP in this State is $20. Under this scenario, the
total fee revenue collected by the SDLA would be $350,000 in the
baseline (calculated as 10,000 CLPs issued at $25 each, plus 5,000
renewals at $20 each). Under the rule, with CLP renewal fee revenue
now eliminated, for the SDLA to receive the same $350,000 of fee
revenue as before the rule, the fee for CLP issuance would need to
increase from $25 to $35. Therefore, the 5,000 drivers who in the
baseline would not have renewed their CLP would incur an increase in
their fees from $25 to $35. However, the other 5,000 drivers who in
the baseline would have had to renew their CLP would realize a
reduction in their total fees from $45 (for CLP issuance plus CLP
renewal) to $35. This would amount to a transfer from the former set
of drivers (who in the baseline would not have renewed their CLPs)
to the latter set of drivers (who in the baseline would have renewed
their CLPs).
    \5\ Under the limited exemption from the CLP requirements in 49
CFR 383.25(c) that was issued on April 5, 2016, the Driver and Motor
Vehicle Services Division (DMV) of the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) did subsequently choose to offer a CLP that is
valid for one year and cannot be renewed. See https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/pages/driverid/cdlget.aspx (accessed October
13, 2016). Based on a review of both the 2016-2017 Oregon Commercial
Driver Manual (pg. 1-6, available at http://www.odot.state.or.us/forms/dmv/36.pdf), and the 2012-2013 Oregon Commercial Driver Manual
(pg. 1-5, available at http://www.e-gears.com/manuals/or_cdl_manual.pdf), it appears that the fee charged by ODOT for
issuance of a CLP was not changed when ODOT chose to offer a CLP
that is valid for one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), requires Federal
agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small
entities, analyze

effective alternatives that minimize small entity impacts, and make
their analyses available for public comment. The term ``small
entities'' means small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that
are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under
50,000.\6\ Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact
of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive
to lessen any adverse effects on these entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Available
at: https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/regulatory-flexibility-act
(accessed February 13, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the RFA requires the
agency to ``prepare and make available for public comment an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis'' which will ``describe the impact of
the proposed rule on small entities'' (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of
the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an
analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The primary entities affected by this proposed rule would be SDLAs
and CLP holders. Under the standards of the RFA, as amended by the
SBREFA, neither SDLAs nor CLP holders are small entities. SDLAs are not
considered small entities because they do not meet the definition of a
small entity in Section 601 of the RFA. Specifically, States are not
considered small governmental jurisdictions under Section 601(5) of the
RFA, both because State government is not included among the various
levels of government listed in Section 601(5), and because, even if
this were the case, no State nor the District of Columbia has a
population of less than 50,000, which is the criterion by which a
governmental jurisdiction is considered small under Section 601(5) of
the RFA. CLP holders are not considered small entities because they too
do not meet the definition of a small entity in Section 601 of the RFA.
Specifically, CLP holders are considered neither a small business under
Section 601(3) of the RFA, nor are they considered a small organization
under Section 601(4) of the RFA. Therefore, this proposed rule will not
have an impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In any case, this rule provides SDLAs the flexibility to choose
whether to adopt the one-year CLP validity. As described in more detail
earlier, because the decision by an SDLA to issue a CLP that is valid
for up to one year is discretionary, the Agency expects that SDLAs will
choose to make this change only to the extent that there is a net
benefit to the SDLA. Furthermore, though there may be some transfer
payment effects between certain types of CLP holders, these effects
will not be significant. The Agency does not believe that there will be
any costs imposed upon CLP holders as a result of this rule, and CLP
holders would benefit from reductions in the opportunity cost of time
that in the absence of this proposed rule would be spent by CLP holders
traveling to and from an SDLA office and at an SDLA office renewing a
CLP. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this proposed rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. FMCSA invites comment from anyone
who believes there will be a significant impact on small entities from
this action.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities
in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative.
If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of
contact, Selden Fritschner, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this proposed rule.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business Administration's 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 FMCSA, call
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights
of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit
policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    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 State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $156 million (which is the
value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to
2015 levels) or more in any one year. This proposed rule, which is a
discretionary regulatory action, would not result in such an
expenditure. Nevertheless, the Agency discusses the potential effects
of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

F. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of E.O.
13132 if it has ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
    FMCSA determined that this proposal would not have substantial
direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking
discretion of States. This proposed rule does not preempt any State law
or regulation. Therefore, this proposed rule does not have sufficient
Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Impact Statement.

G. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

H. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires agencies
issuing ``economically significant'' rules, if the regulation also
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an
evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects
on children. The Agency determined this proposed rule is not
economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on
children is required. In any event, this regulatory action does not in
any respect present an environmental health or safety risk that could
disproportionately affect children.

I. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have taking implications.

J. Privacy

    The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, (Pub. L. 108-447, 118
Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note) requires the Agency to conduct a
privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the
privacy of individuals. Because this proposed rule does not require the
collection of personally identifiable information (PII), the Agency is
not required to conduct a PIA.
    The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, Sec.  208, 116
Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct
a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects,
maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new
or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or
disseminate information as a result of this rule. Accordingly, FMCSA
has not conducted a PIA.

K. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this
program.

L. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that the rule is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it
does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

M. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O.
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would 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.

N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical
Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) are standards that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule
does not use technical standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not consider the
use of voluntary consensus standards.

O. Environment (NEPA, CAA, Environmental Justice)

    FMCSA analyzed this NPRM for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined this action is categorically excluded from further analysis
and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1(69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004),
Appendix 2, paragraph 6.t.(2). The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in
paragraph 6.t.(2) includes regulations to ensure that the States comply
with the provisions of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986.
The requirements in this proposed rule are covered by this CE and the
proposed action does not have a significant effect on the quality of
the human environment. The CE determination is available for inspection
or copying in the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    FMCSA also analyzed this proposed rule under the Clean Air Act, as
amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and
implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general
conformity requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect
emissions of criteria pollutants.
    Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as
appropriate, ``disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations'' in the United States,
its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental
justice effects of this proposed rule in accordance with the E.O., and
has determined that no environmental justice issue is associated with
this proposed rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact
that would result from its promulgation.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR 383

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Motor carriers.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
chapter 3, part 383 to read as follows:

PART 383--COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS; REQUIREMENTS AND
PENALTIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 383 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502;
secs. 214 and 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767;
sec. 1012(b) of Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, 297; sec. 4140 of
Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1746; sec. 32934 of Pub. L. 112-141,
126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 7208 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312,
1593; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Amend Sec.  383.25 to revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  383.25  Commercial learner's permit (CLP).

* * * * *
    (c) The CLP must be valid for no more than one year from the date
of issuance without requiring the CLP holder to retake the general and
endorsement knowledge tests. CLPs issued for a period of less than one
year may be renewed as long as the renewed CLP is valid for no more
than one year from the date of initial issuance of the original CLP.
0
3. Amend Sec.  383.73 to revise paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  383.73  State procedures.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Make the CLP valid for no more than one year from the date of
issuance without requiring the CLP holder to retake the general and
endorsement knowledge tests. CLPs issued for a period of less than one
year may be renewed as long as the renewed CLP is valid for no more
than one year from the date of initial issuance of the original CLP.
* * * * *

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: June 6,
2017.
Daphne Y. Jefferson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-12080 Filed 6-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 184 (Monday, September 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53297-53298]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20895]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1127-000.
    Applicants: Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: TXP Compliance Filing to be
effective 11/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/20/21.
    Accession Number: 20210920-5084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1128-000.
    Applicants: Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2021 Fuel and Line Loss Report to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/20/21.
    Accession Number: 20210920-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1129-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: ANR Best Bid Evaluation Tariff
Change to be effective 10/20/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/20/21.
    Accession Number: 20210920-5120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1130-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 9.21.21 Negotiated Rates--
Citadel Energy Marketing LLC R-7705-05 to be effective 11/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210921-5005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1131-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 9.21.21 Negotiated Rates--
Citadel Energy Marketing LLC R-7705-06 to be effective 11/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210921-5006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1132-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 9.21.21 Negotiated Rates--Twin
Eagle Resource Management, LLC R-7300-22 to be effective 11/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210921-5009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1133-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 9.21.21 Negotiated Rates--Twin
Eagle Resource Management, LLC R-7300-23 to be effective 11/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210921-5011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1134-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 9.21.21 Negotiated Rates--Twin
Eagle Resource Management, LLC R-7300-24 to be effective 11/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210921-5012.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/4/21.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 21, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-20895 Filed 9-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 182 (Friday, September 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58379-58380]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20673]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022]

Technical Mapping Advisory Council; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical
Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will hold a virtual meeting on
Thursday, October 29 and Friday October 30, 2020. The meeting will be
open to the public via a Zoom Video Communications link.

DATES: The TMAC will meet on Thursday, October 29 and Friday October
30, 2020, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). Please note that
the meeting will close early if the TMAC has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held virtually using Zoom Video
Communications, Meeting Identification (ID)<PHONE_NUMBER>4 (https://fema.zoomgov.com/j/16195624614) to share meeting visuals and audio. A
conference number (1-646-828-7666; Meeting ID 161 9562 4614#; Password
875873#) will also be used. Members of the public who wish to attend
the virtual meeting must register in advance by sending an email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Attention: Michael Nakagaki) by 5 p.m. ET on
Tuesday, October 27, 2020. For information on services for individuals
with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting,
contact the person listed below by Tuesday, October 27, 2020.
    To facilitate public participation, members of the public are
invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by
the TMAC, as listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION caption below.
Associated meeting materials will be available at the TMAC website
(https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/guidance-partners/technical-mapping-advisory-council) for review by Friday, October 23, 2020. Written
comments to be considered by the committee at the time of the meeting
must be submitted and received by Tuesday, October 27, 2020, identified
by Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022, and submitted by the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
    Email: Address the email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the
docket number in the subject line of the message. Include name and
contact information in the body of the email.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Federal Emergency Management Agency'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Docket: For docket access to read background documents or comments
received by the TMAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for
the Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022.
    A public comment period will be held on Thursday, October 29, 2020,
from 12 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. ET and Friday, October 30, 2020, from 12
p.m. to 12:30 p.m. ET. Speakers are requested to limit their comments
to no more than three minutes. The public comment period will not
exceed 30 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end
before the time indicated, following the last call for comments.
Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker by close
of business on Tuesday, October 27, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Nakagaki, Designated Federal
Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20024,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
TMAC website is: https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/guidance-partners/technical-mapping-advisory-council.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).
    In accordance with the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of
2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on: (1)
How to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the (a) accuracy, general
quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood
insurance rate maps and risk data; and (b) performance metrics and
milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas
in the United States; (2) mapping standards and guidelines for (a)
flood insurance rate maps, and (b) data accuracy, data quality, data
currency, and data eligibility; (3) how to maintain, on an ongoing
basis, flood insurance rate maps and flood risk identification; (4)
procedures for delegating mapping activities to State and local mapping
partners; and (5) (a) methods for improving interagency and
intergovernmental coordination on flood mapping and flood risk

determination, and (b) a funding strategy to leverage and coordinate
budgets and expenditures across Federal agencies. Furthermore, the TMAC
is required to submit an annual report to the FEMA Administrator that
contains: (1) A description of the activities of the Council; (2) an
evaluation of the status and performance of flood insurance rate maps
and mapping activities to revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps;
and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA
Administrator.
    Agenda: The purpose of this meeting is for the 2020 TMAC to review
the 2020 Annual Report format and discuss the content of each
subcommittee section. Any related materials will be posted to the FEMA
TMAC site prior to the meeting to provide the public an opportunity to
review the materials. The full agenda and related meeting materials
will be posted for review by Friday, October 23, 2020, at https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/guidance-partners/technical-mapping-advisory-council.

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-20673 Filed 9-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45978-45979]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19689]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0027]

Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding With the Department
of Energy (August 28, 1992); Oak Ridge, Tennessee Properties

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an addendum to the interagency Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL),
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE). The MOU establishes specific interagency
procedures for the transfer of occupational safety and health coverage
for privatized facilities, properties, and operations from DOE to OSHA
and state agencies acting under state plans approved by OSHA.

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
September 11, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, OSHA Office of Technical Programs and Coordination
Activities, Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management,
U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    DOE and OSHA entered into a MOU on August 10, 1992, delineating
regulatory authority over the occupational safety and health of
contractor employees at DOE government-owned or leased, contractor-
operated (GOCO) facilities. In general, the MOU recognizes that DOE
exercises statutory authority under section 161(f) of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2201(f)), relating to the
occupational safety and health of private-sector employees at these
facilities.
    Section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety Health Act of 1970 (OSH
Act) (29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1), exempts from OSHA authority working
conditions with respect to which other federal agencies have exercised
statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations
affecting occupational safety and health. The 1992 MOU acknowledges
DOE's extensive program for the regulation of contractor health and
safety, which requires contractor compliance with all OSHA standards as
well as additional requirements prescribed by DOE, and concludes with
an agreement by the agencies that the provisions of the OSH Act will
not apply to GOCO sites for which DOE has exercised authority to
regulate occupational safety and health under the Atomic Energy Act.
The 1992 MOU has expired.
    In light of DOE's policy emphasis on privatization activities, OSHA
and DOE entered into a second MOU on July 25, 2000, that establishes
interagency procedures to address regulatory authority for occupational
safety and health at specified privatized facilities and operations on
sites formerly controlled by DOE. The July 25, 2000, MOU covers
facilities and operations on lands no longer controlled by DOE, which
are not conducting activities for or on behalf of DOE and where there
is no likelihood that any employee exposure to radiation from DOE
sources would be 25 millirems per year (mrem/yr) or more.

II. Notice of Transfer

    In an email dated February 2, 2018, DOE requested that OSHA or, as
appropriate, the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (TOSHA) accept occupational safety and health regulatory
authority over employees at the East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, six parcels of land pursuant to the MOU on Safety and
Health Enforcement at Privatized Facilities and Operations dated July
25, 2000. Other facilities and properties at the East Tennessee
Technology Park were transferred to TOSHA jurisdiction under this MOU
by Federal Register notices 74 FR 120 (January 2, 2009), 74 FR 39977
(August 10, 2009), 76 FR 80408 (December 23, 2011) and 79 FR 29456 (May
22, 2014).
    The six parcels of land, which are located at the East Tennessee
Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and were transferred by deed
to the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET) are
described as follows:
     Land Parcel ED-11 Consists of five tracts of land
separated by roadways: ED-11A (11.67 acres), ED-11B (2.25 acres), ED-
11C (0.49 acres), ED-11D

(0.31 acres), and ED-11E (0.15 acres). No buildings are included in
this transfer;
     Land Parcel ED-12 Consists of five tracts of land
separated by roadways: ED-12A (5.88 acres), ED-12B (2.57 acres), ED-12C
(1.75 acres), ED-12D (2.99 acres), and ED-12E (0.16 acres). No
buildings are included in this transfer;
     Land Parcel ED-3 Consists of two tracts of land separated
by roadways. The southern tract (111 acres), and the northern tract
(2.5 acres). No buildings are included in this transfer;
     Land Parcel ED-3 West Consists of one tract of
approximately 72 acres. No buildings are included in this transfer;
     Land Parcel K-31 Consists of one tract of approximately 61
acres. No buildings are included in this transfer. Any existing
buildings will be destroyed before the transfer takes place; and
     Land Parcel K-33 Consists of one tract of approximately
136.4 acres. No buildings are included in this transfer.
    OSHA's Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia, working with the OSHA
Nashville Area Office and TOSHA, determined that TOSHA is willing to
accept authority over the occupational safety and health of public-
sector and private-sector employees at the six parcels of land at the
East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, that were
transferred by deed to CROET. In a letter from OSHA to DOE dated May
21, 2018, OSHA stated that TOSHA is satisfied with DOE assurances that
(1) there is no likelihood that any employee at facilities in the
vicinity of these land parcels will be exposed to radiation levels that
will be 25 millirems per year (mrem/yr) or more, and; (2) transfer of
authority to TOSHA is free from regulatory gaps and does not diminish
the safety and health protection of the employees.
    Accordingly, TOSHA accepts and maintains health and safety
regulatory authority over employees in the vicinity of Land Parcels ED-
11, ED-12, ED-3, ED-3 West, K-31 and K-33.

III. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. This
Federal Register notice provides public notice and serves as an
addendum to the 1992 OSHA/DOE MOU. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing
this notice pursuant to Section 8(g)(2) of the Occupational Health and
Safety Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2)), Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on September 5, 2018.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2018-19689 Filed 9-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: September 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 57493-57494]
[DOCID:fr29se06-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP06-455-000, CP06-456-000 and CP06-457-000]

Kinder Morgan Illinois Pipeline LLC; Notice of Application

September 25, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 14, 2006, Kinder Morgan Illinois
Pipeline LL (KMIP), 747 East 22nd Street, Lombard, Illinois 60148,
filed in Docket Nos. CP06-455-000, CP06-456-000 and CP06-457-000 an
application pursuant to sections 7 (c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and
Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations, for certificates of public
convenience and necessity authorizing:
    The long-term lease of 360 MDth per day of firm capacity in
approximately 25.73 miles of existing pipeline facilities owned by
Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural), all located in Cook,
Will and Kankabee Counties, Illinois; the construction and operation of
approximately 3.1 miles of new 24-inch pipeline and appurtenances; the
construction and operation of three (3) new meter/regulator stations
and appurtenances (for the receipt of gas into its lease capacity and
its new pipeline); the undertaking of self-implementing interstate
transportation of natural gas under Part 284, Subpart G of the
Commission's Regulations; and the future construction of facilities
under the blanket certificate authority under Part 157, Subpart f of
the Commission's Regulations.
    This application is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. 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 e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    KMIP will be a new interstate pipeline company subject to
Commission jurisdiction under the NGA. The design capacity of KMIP will
be 360 MDth per day. KMIP has one anchor shipper, The Peoples Gas Light
and Coke Company (PGLC), which has signed a precedent agreement for
long-term firm transportation service totaling 360 MDth per day. KMIP's
facilities are intended to help meet the goals of PGLC which are to:
(1) Increase gas supply diversity into the City of Chicago, (2) lessen
dependence on PGLC's Crawford Station by providing additional supply
access directly to the Calumet region of its system and (3) increase
reliability of supply in the event of catastrophic interruption of
existing deliveries into PGLC's Chicago distribution system. The
estimated cost of the proposed facilities is $13.3 million. KMIP
proposes an in-service date by November 1, 2007.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Bruce H. Newsome, Vice President, Kinder Morgan Illinois Pipeline LLC,
747 East 22nd Street, Lombard, Illinois 60148 at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.

    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing''
link at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission strongly encourages

intervenors to file electronically. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest
or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: October 16, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16004 Filed 9-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 70741]
[DOCID:fr18no10-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. ER11-1936-000]

TPF Generation Holdings, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

November 9, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
TPF Generation Holdings, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 29, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29047 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P