[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2875-2876]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01555]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-3918]

Request for Nomination From Industry Organizations Interested in
Participating in the Selection Process for Nonvoting Industry
Representatives and Request for Nominations for Nonvoting Industry
Representatives on Public Advisory Committees

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
requesting that any industry organizations interested in participating
in the selection of nonvoting industry representatives to serve on its
public advisory committees for the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER) notify FDA in writing. FDA is also requesting
nominations for nonvoting industry representatives to serve on CDER's
public advisory committees. A nominee may either be self-nominated or
nominated by an organization to serve as a nonvoting industry
representative. Nominations will be accepted for vacancies which become
available on November 1, 2019, for the 4-year term of November 1, 2019
to October 31, 2023.

DATES: Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests must send a letter stating that interest to FDA by March 11,
2019, (see sections I and II of this document for further details).
Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates should be
sent to FDA by March 11, 2019.

ADDRESSES: All statements of interest from industry organizations
interested in participating in the selection process of nonvoting
industry representative nominations should be sent to Cicely Reese (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). All nominations for nonvoting
industry representatives may be submitted electronically by accessing
the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm or by mail
to: Division of Advisory Committee and Consultant Management, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Information about becoming a member of an
FDA advisory committee can also be obtained by visiting FDA's website
at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cicely Reese, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-9001, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Agency intends to add a nonvoting
industry representative to the following advisory committees:

I. CDER Advisory Committees

A. Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in anesthesiology and surgery.

B. Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in the treatment of infectious diseases and disorders.

C. Arthritis Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in the treatment of arthritis, rheumatism, and related diseases.

D. Bone, Reproductive, and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data on the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drugs for use in
the practice of obstetrics, gynecology, urology, and related
specialties.

E. Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data on the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in the treatment of cardiovascular and renal disorders.

F. Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in the treatment of dermatologic and ophthalmic disorders.

G. Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates information on risk management, risk
communication, and quantitative evaluation of spontaneous reports for
drugs for human use.

H. Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in the treatment of endocrine and metabolic disorders.

I. Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in the treatment of gastrointestinal diseases.

J. Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive
pharmaceuticals and contrast media used in diagnostic radiology.

K. Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of over-the-counter (nonprescription) human drug products
for use in the treatment of a broad spectrum of human symptoms and
diseases.

L. Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in the treatment of cancer.

M. Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in the treatment of neurologic diseases.

N. Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates scientific, clinical, and technical issues
related to the safety and effectiveness of drug products for use in the
treatment of a broad spectrum of human diseases.

O. Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee

    Provides advice on scientific, technical, and medical issues
concerning drug compounding.

P. Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in the practice of psychiatry and related fields.

Q. Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee

    Reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in the treatment of pulmonary disease and diseases with allergic
and/or immunologic mechanisms.

II. Selection Procedure

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of publication of
this document (see DATES). Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will send
a letter to each organization that has expressed an interest, attaching
a complete list of all such organizations; and a list of all nominees
along with their current resum[egrave]s. The letter will also state
that it is the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer
with one another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the
receipt of the FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to
represent industry interests for the committee. The interested
organizations are not bound by the list of nominees in selecting a
candidate. However, if no individual is selected within 60 days, the
Commissioner will select the nonvoting member to represent industry
interests.

III. Application Procedure

    Individuals may self-nominate and/or an organization may nominate
one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry
representative. Contact information, current curriculum vitae, and the
name of the committee of interest should be sent to the FDA Advisory
Committee Membership Nomination Portal (see ADDRESSES) within 30 days
of publication of this document (see DATES). FDA will forward all
nominations to the organizations expressing interest in participating
in the selection process for the committee. (Persons who nominate
themselves as nonvoting industry representatives will not participate
in the selection process.)
    FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all
racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities
on its advisory committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of
appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: February 4, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-01555 Filed 2-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


biodiesel above the BBD standard. In 2013 the number of advanced RINs
generated from fuels other than BBD and cellulosic biofuel was not
large enough to satisfy the implied standard for ``other advanced''
biofuel (advanced biofuel needed to satisfy the advanced biofuel
standard after the BBD and cellulosic biofuel standards are met), and
additional volumes of BBD filled the gap (see Table

VI.B.2-1 below). In fact, the amount by which the available BBD RINs
exceeded the 1.28 billion gallon BBD volume requirement (421 million
RINs) was larger than the amount of such excess BBD needed, together
with other types of advanced biofuels, to satisfy the advanced biofuel
standard (278 million RINs; the number of advanced biofuel RINs
required after subtracting the number of RINs generated to meet the BBD
standard and the number of RINs generated for non-BBD advanced
biofuels), suggesting that the additional increment was incentivized by
the total renewable fuel standard. Preliminary data for 2016 similarly
reveal the ability for the advanced and total renewable fuel standards
to incentivize increased BBD production. The current RIN generation
data suggest that BBD production is on track to exceed the BBD standard
for 2016 by a significant margin, and that these excess BBD RINs will
be needed to enable compliance with the advanced biofuel and total
renewable fuel standards given the limited production of other advanced
biofuels.\195\ As discussed above, the 2014 and 2015 BBD standards were
intended to reflect the full number of available BBD RINs in these
years and were set in late 2015, at which point the number of available
RINs in these years was largely known. We can therefore draw no
conclusions about the ability for the advanced and total renewable fuel
standards to incentivize BBD production from these years. While the
available BBD RINs in 2012 were slightly less than the BBD standard
despite the opportunity to contribute towards meeting the advanced and
total renewable fuel standards, there are several factors beyond the
RFS standards (2012 drought, expiration of the biodiesel tax credit,
opportunities for increased ethanol blending as E10) that likely
impacted BBD production in 2012. We continue to believe that the
advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel standards can provide a
strong incentive for increased BBD volume in the United States in
excess of that required to satisfy the BBD standard (for further
discussion on this issue see 80 FR 77492).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ ``Comparison of 2016 availability of RINs and 2016
standards,'' memorandum from David Korotney to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0004.

             Table VI.B.2-1--Biomass-Based Diesel and Advanced Biofuel RIN Generation and Standards
                                                 [Million RINs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Opportunity
                                                   Available BBD   BBD standard    Available D5     for ``Other
                                                      (RINs)          (RINs)      RINs (advanced    Advanced''
                                                                                biofuels) \a\   biofuels \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................................           1,483           1,200             225             150
2012............................................           1,465           1,500             597             500
2013............................................           2,341           1,920             552             830
2014............................................           2,492           2,490             143             147
2015............................................           2,631           2,655             147             102
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Does not include BBD or cellulosic biofuel RINs, which may also be used towards an obligated party's
  advanced biofuel obligation.
\b\ Advanced biofuel that does not qualify as BBD or cellulosic biofuel; calculated by subtracting the number of
  required BBD RINs (BBD required volume x 1.5) and the number of required cellulosic biofuel RINs from the
  advanced biofuel volume requirement.

    The prices paid for advanced biofuel and BBD RINs beginning in
early 2013 through mid-2016 also support the conclusion that advanced
biofuel and/or total renewable fuel standards provide a sufficient
incentive for additional biodiesel volume beyond what is required by
the BBD standard. Because the BBD standard is nested within the
advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel standards, and therefore can
help to satisfy three RVOs, we would expect the price of BBD RINs to
exceed that of advanced and conventional renewable RINs.\196\ If,
however, BBD RINs are being used by obligated parties to satisfy their
advanced biofuel and/or total renewable fuel obligations, above and
beyond the BBD standard, we would expect the prices of conventional
renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, and BBD RINs to converge to the price
of the BBD RIN.\197\ When examining RIN prices data from 2013 through
mid-2016, shown in Figure VI.B.2-1 below, we see that throughout this
entire time period the advanced RIN price and biomass-based diesel RIN
prices were approximately equal. Similarly, throughout most of this
time period the conventional renewable fuel and biomass-based diesel
RIN prices were approximately equal. This suggests that the advanced
biofuel standard and/or total renewable fuel standard was capable of
incentivizing increased BBD volumes beyond the BBD standard in these
years.\198\ While final standards were not in place throughout 2014 and
most of 2015, EPA had issued proposed rules for both of these years. In
each year, the market response was to supply volumes of BBD that
exceeded the proposed BBD standard in order to satisfy the advanced
biofuel standard. Additionally, the RIN prices in these years strongly
suggests that obligated parties and other market participants
anticipated the need for BBD RINs to meet their advanced biofuel
obligations, and responded by purchasing advanced biofuel and BBD RINs
at approximately equal prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ This is because when an obligated party retires a BBD RIN
to help satisfy their BBD obligation, the nested nature of the BBD
standard means that this RIN also counts towards satisfying their
advanced and total renewable fuel obligations. Advanced RINs count
towards both the advanced and total renewable fuel obligations,
while conventional RINs (D6) count towards only the total renewable
fuel obligation.
    \197\ We would still expect D4 RINs to be valued at a slight
premium to D5 and D6 RINs in this case (and D5 RINs at a slight
premium to D6 RINs) to reflect the greater flexibility of the D4
RINs to be used towards the BBD, advanced biofuel, and total
renewable fuel standard. This pricing has been observed over the
past several years.
    \198\ Although we did not issue a rule establishing the final
2013 standards until August of 2013, we believe that the market
anticipated the final standards, based on EPA's July 2011 proposal
and the volume targets for advanced and total renewable fuel
established in the statute (76 FR 38844, 38843).

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12DE16.009

    In establishing the BBD and cellulosic standards as nested within
the advanced biofuel standard, Congress clearly intended to support
development of BBD and cellulosic biofuels, while also providing an
incentive for the growth of other non-specified types of advanced
biofuels. That is, the advanced biofuel standard provides an
opportunity for other advanced biofuels (advanced biofuels that do not
qualify as cellulosic biofuel or BBD) to be used to satisfy the
advanced biofuel standard after the cellulosic biofuel and BBD
standards have been met. Indeed, since Congress specifically directed
growth in BBD only through 2012, leaving development of volume targets
for BBD to EPA for later years while also specifying substantial growth
in the cellulosic biofuel and advanced biofuel categories, we believe
that Congress clearly intended for EPA to evaluate in setting BBD
volume requirements after 2012 the appropriate rate of participation of
BBD within the advanced biofuel standard.
    When viewed in a long-term perspective, BBD can be seen as
competing for research and development dollars with other types of
advanced biofuels for participation as advanced biofuels in the RFS
program. We believe that preserving space within the advanced biofuel
standard for advanced biofuels that do not qualify as BBD or cellulosic
biofuel provides the appropriate incentives for the continued
development of these types of fuels. In addition to the long-term
impact of our action in establishing the BBD volume requirements, there
is also the potential for short-term impacts during the compliance
years in question. By establishing BBD volume requirements at levels
lower than the advanced biofuel volume requirements (and lower than the
expected production of BBD to satisfy the advanced biofuel
requirement), we are creating the potential for some competition
between BBD and other advanced biofuels to satisfy the advanced biofuel
volume standard. We continue to believe that preserving space under the
advanced biofuel standard for non-BBD advanced biofuels, as well as BBD
volumes in excess of the BBD standard, will help to encourage the
development and production of a variety of advanced biofuels over the
long term without reducing the incentive for additional volumes of BBD
beyond the BBD standard in 2018. A variety of different types of
advanced biofuels, rather than a single type such as BBD, would
positively impact energy security (e.g., by increasing the diversity of
feedstock sources used to make biofuels, thereby reducing the impacts
associated with a shortfall in a particular type of feedstock) and
increase the likelihood of the development of lower cost advanced
biofuels that meet the same GHG reduction threshold as BBD.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ All types of advanced biofuel, including biomass-based
diesel and cellulosic biofuel, must achieve lifecycle greenhouse gas
reductions of at least 50%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While a single-minded focus on the ability of the advanced and
total renewable fuel standards to incentivize increasing production of
the lowest cost qualifying biofuels, regardless of fuel type, would
suggest that a flat or even decreasing BBD volume requirement may be
the optimal solution, this is not the only consideration. Despite many
of these same issues being present in previous years, we have
consistently increased the BBD standard each year. Our decisions to
establish increasing BBD volumes each year have been made in light of
the fact that while cellulosic biofuel production has fallen far short
of the statutory volumes, the available supply of BBD in the United
States has grown each year. This growing supply of BBD allowed EPA to
establish higher advanced biofuel standards, and to realize the GHG
benefits associated with greater volumes of advanced biofuel, than
would otherwise have been possible in light of the continued shortfall
in the availability of cellulosic biofuel. It is in this context that
we determined that steadily increasing the BBD requirements was
appropriate to encourage continued investment and innovation in the BBD
industry, providing necessary assurances to the industry to increase
production, while also serving the long term goal of the RFS statute to
increase volumes of advanced biofuels over time.

    Although the BBD industry has performed well in recent years, we
believe that for 2018 a continued appropriate increase in the BBD
volume requirement will help provide stability to the BBD industry and
encourage continued growth. This industry is currently the single
largest contributor to the advanced biofuel pool, one that to date has
been largely responsible for providing the growth in advanced biofuels
envisioned by Congress. Nevertheless, many factors that impact the
viability of the BBD industry in the United States, such as commodity
prices and the biodiesel tax credit, remain uncertain. Continuing to
increase the BBD volume requirement should help to provide market
conditions that allow these BBD production facilities to operate with
greater certainty. This result is consistent with the goals of the Act
to increase the production and use of advanced biofuels (for further
discussion of these issues see 80 FR 77492).
3. BBD Volume for 2018
    With the considerations discussed in Section IV.B.2 in mind, as
well as our analysis of the factors specified in the statute, we are
setting the applicable volume of BBD at 2.1 billion gallons for 2018.
This volume represents an annual increase of 100 million gallons over
the applicable volume of BBD in 2017. We believe this is appropriate
for the same reasons reflected in the December 14, 2015 final rule: To
provide additional support for the BBD industry while allowing room
within the advanced biofuel volume requirement for the participation of
non-BBD advanced fuels. Although we are not setting the advanced
biofuel volume requirement for 2018 at this time, we anticipate that
the 2018 advanced biofuel requirement will be larger than the 2017
advanced biofuel volume requirement, and the 2018 BBD volume
requirement reflects this anticipated approach. Our assessment of the
required statutory factors, summarized in the next section and in a
memorandum to the docket, supports this approach.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ ``Memorandum to docket: Final Statutory Factors Assessment
for the 2018 Biomass-Based Diesel (BBD) Applicable Volumes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe this approach strikes the appropriate balance between
providing a market environment where the development of other advanced
biofuels is incentivized, while also maintaining support for growth in
BBD volumes. Given the volumes for advanced biofuel we anticipate
requiring in 2018, setting the BBD standard in this manner would
continue to allow a considerable portion of the advanced biofuel volume
to be satisfied by either additional gallons of BBD or by other
unspecified types of qualifying advanced biofuels.

C. Consideration of Statutory Factors for 2018

    In this section we discuss our consideration of the statutory
factors set forth in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(VI). As noted
earlier in Section IV.B.2, the BBD volume requirement is nested within
the advanced biofuel requirement and the advanced biofuel requirement
is, in turn, nested within the total renewable fuel volume requirement.
This means that any BBD produced beyond the mandated BBD volume can be
used to satisfy both these other applicable volume requirements. The
result is that in considering the statutory factors we must consider
the potential impacts of increasing BBD in comparison to other advanced
biofuels.\201\ For a given advanced biofuel standard, greater or lesser
BBD volume requirements do not change the amount of advanced biofuel
used to displace petroleum fuels; rather, increasing the BBD
requirement may result in the displacement of other types of advanced
biofuels that could have been used to meet the advanced biofuels volume
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ While excess BBD production could also displace
conventional renewable fuel under the total renewable standard, as
long as the BBD applicable volume is significantly lower than the
advanced biofuel applicable volume our action in setting the BBD
applicable volume is not expected to displace conventional renewable
fuel under the total renewable standard, but rather other advanced
biofuels. See Table V. C-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with our 2017 approach in setting the final BBD volume
requirement, EPA's primary assessment of the statutory factors for the
final 2018 BBD applicable volume is that because the BBD requirement is
nested within the advanced biofuel volume requirement, we expect that
the final 2018 advanced volume requirement, when set next year, will
largely determine the level of BBD production and imports that occur in
2018. Therefore, EPA continues to believe that the same overall volume
of BBD would likely be supplied in 2018 regardless of the BBD volume we
mandate for 2018 in this final rule. This assessment is based, in part,
on our review of the RFS program implementation to date, as discussed
above in Section VI.B.1-VI.B-2.
    As we stated in our proposal, even though we are not setting the
2018 advanced biofuel volume requirement in this final rule, the final
BBD volume requirement for 2018 that we are establishing in this action
is not expected to impact the volume of BBD that is actually produced
and imported during the 2018-time period. Thus we do not expect our
final 2018 BBD volume requirement to result in a difference in the
factors we are required to consider pursuant to CAA section
211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(VI). However, we note that our approach of setting
BBD volume requirement at a higher level in 2018 (as we did in 2017),
while still at a volume level lower than the anticipated overall
production and consumption of BBD in 2018, is consistent with our
evaluation of statutory factors in CAA sections 211(o)(2)(B)(ii) (I),
(II) and (III), since we continue to believe that our decision on the
BBD volume requirement can have a positive impact on the future
development and marketing of other advanced biofuels and can also
result in potential environmental and energy security benefits, while
still sending a supportive signal to potential BBD investors,
consistent with the objectives of the Act to encourage the continued
growth in production and use of renewable fuels, and in particular,
advanced renewable fuels.
    Even though we are finalizing only the 2018 BBD volume requirement
at this time and not the 2018 advanced biofuel requirement, we believe
that our primary assessment with respect to the 2018 BBD volume
requirement is appropriate, as is clear from the fact that the
reasoning and analysis would apply even if we did not increase the 2018
advanced biofuel requirement above 2017 levels.\202\ Nevertheless, we
anticipate that the 2018 advanced biofuel requirement will be set to
reflect reasonably attainable and appropriate volumes in the use of all
advanced biofuels, similar to the approach used in this rule, and that
the advanced biofuel volume standard will be larger in 2018 than in
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ As explained in Section IV, in deriving the 2017 advanced
biofuel applicable volume requirement, we assumed that 2.4 billion
gallons of BBD (3.72 billion RINs) would be used to satisfy the 4.28
bill gal advanced biofuel requirement. Thus the mandated 2018 BBD
applicable volume is less than we anticipate will actually be used
in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an additional supplementary assessment, we have considered the
potential impacts of modifying the 2018 BBD volume requirement from the
level of 2.1 billion gallons based on the assumption that in
guaranteeing the BBD volume at any given level there could be greater
use of BBD and a corresponding decrease in the use of other types of
advanced biofuels. However, setting a BBD volume requirement higher or
lower than 2.1

billion gallons in 2018 would only be expected to impact BBD volumes on
the margin, protecting to a lesser or greater degree BBD from being
outcompeted by other advanced biofuels. In this supplementary
assessment we have considered all of the statutory factors found in CAA
section 211(2)(B)(ii), and as described in a memorandum to the
docket,\203\ our assessment does not appear, based on available
information, to provide a reasonable basis for setting a higher or
lower volume requirement for BBD than 2.1 billion gallons for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ ``Memorandum to docket: Final Statutory Factors Assessment
for the 2018 Biomass-Based Diesel (BBD) Applicable Volumes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall and as described in our final memorandum to the docket, we
have determined that both the primary assessment and the supplemental
assessment of the statutory factors specified in CAA section
211(o)(2)(B)(ii)(I)-(VI) for the year 2018 does not provide significant
support for setting the BBD standard at a level higher or lower than
2.1 billion gallons in 2018.
    The EPA received numerous comments pertaining to the consideration
of the statutory factors for the 2018 BBD volume requirement. Many of
these comments were made previously in response to last year's proposal
to set the 2017 BBD volume requirement at 2.0 billion as part of the
renewable fuels program's annual rulemaking.\204\ Below we reiterate
our responses to a number of key issues which continue to be raised by
the National Biodiesel Board (NBB). Additional comments and EPA
responses can be found in the Response to Comment document that
accompanies this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Standards for 2014, 2015,
and 2016 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2017; Final Rule. 80 FR
77420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NBB restated its claim that we improperly based our consideration
of the statutory factors on a comparison of BBD to other advanced
biofuels, rather than to diesel fuel. They continued to suggest that
setting the BBD standard at a higher level than proposed would actually
result in BBD competing against diesel fuel, and therefore, EPA should
analyze the impacts of displacing diesel fuel with BBD in its statutory
factors analysis. We continue to disagree. In setting the advanced
biofuel volume requirement, we have assumed reasonably attainable and
appropriate volumes in BBD and other advanced biofuels. After
determining that it is in the interest of the program, as described in
Section VI.B.2 to set the BBD volume requirement at a level below
anticipated BBD production and imports, so as to provide continued
incentives for research and development of alternative advanced
biofuels, it is apparent that excess BBD above the BBD volume
requirement will compete with other advanced biofuels, rather than
diesel.\205\ The only way for EPA's action on the BBD volume
requirement to result in a direct displacement of petroleum-based
fuels, rather than other advanced biofuels, would be if the BBD volume
requirement were set larger than the total renewable fuel requirement.
However, since BBD is a type of advanced biofuel, and advanced biofuel
is a type of renewable fuel, the BBD volume requirement could never be
larger than the advanced requirement and the advanced biofuel
requirement could never be larger than the total renewable fuel
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ The possibility for competition between BBD and other
types of advanced biofuels is not precluded by our setting the
advanced biofuel requirement at a level that reflects reasonably
attainable volumes of all advanced biofuel types, or by our setting
the total renewable fuel volume requirement at a level that also
reflects the reasonably achievable volume of all fuel types. Any of
our estimates related to a particular fuel type could prove to be
either an over or under estimate. We are confident that the sum of
all individual estimates used in setting the applicable volumes for
2017 as well as the 2018 BBD volume requirement at an appropriate
level are reasonable, and more accurate than our individual
estimates for any particular fuel type. It is at the margin where
our estimates regarding production and import of individual fuel
types may be in error that competition between qualifying fuels can
take place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NBB also continues to assert that our analysis of the desirability
of setting the BBD volume requirement in a manner that would promote
the development and use of a diverse array of advanced biofuels is
prohibited by statute. We disagree with these comments and continue to
believe that the statutory volumes of renewable fuel established by
Congress in CAA section 211(o)(2)(B) provide an opportunity for other
advanced biofuels (advanced biofuels that do not qualify as cellulosic
biofuel or BBD) to be used to satisfy the advanced biofuel standard
after the cellulosic biofuel and BBD standards have been met. Ensuring
that a diversity of renewable biofuels are produced is consistent with
CAA section 211 (o)(2)(A)(i), which requires that the EPA ``ensure that
transportation fuel sold, or introduced into commerce in the United
States . . . contains at least the applicable volume of renewable fuel,
advanced biofuels, cellulosic biofuel, and biomass-based diesel . .
.''. Because the BBD standard is nested within the advanced biofuel and
total renewable fuel standards, when an obligated party retires a BBD
RIN (D4) to satisfy their obligation, this RIN also counts towards
meeting their advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel obligations. It
also means that obligated parties may use BBD RINs in excess of their
BBD obligations to satisfy their advanced biofuel and total renewable
fuel obligations. To the extent that obligated parties are required to
achieve compliance with the overall advanced biofuel standard using
higher volumes of BBD D4 RINs, they forgo the use of other biofuels
considered advanced biofuels to meet the advanced biofuel requirement.
Therefore, the higher the BBD volume standard is, the lower the
opportunity for other non-BBD advanced biofuels to compete for market
share within the context of the advanced biofuel standard. When viewed
in a long-term perspective, BBD can be seen as competing for research
and development dollars with other types of advanced biofuels for
participation as advanced biofuels in the RFS program.
    Finally, NBB restated its argument that the EPA previously found
statutory factors supported greater annual increases in BBD volume
requirement for 2013 and the statutory factors analysis developed to
justify the 2017 BBD and now the 2018 volume requirements contradicts
the analysis EPA put forward in 2013. We disagree. As in 2013, we have
determined that incremental increases in the 2018 BBD volume
requirement are appropriate to provide continued support to the BBD
industry. We did this in 2013, acknowledging the important role the
industry thus far had played in providing advanced biofuels to the
marketplace, and in furthering the GHG reduction objectives of the
statute. We did not in 2013, and are not today, setting the BBD volume
requirement at the maximum potential production volume of BBD.

VII. Percentage Standards for 2017

    The renewable fuel standards are expressed as volume percentages
and are used by each obligated party to determine their Renewable
Volume Obligations (RVOs). Since there are four separate standards
under the RFS program, there are likewise four separate RVOs applicable
to each obligated party. Each standard applies to the sum of all non-
renewable gasoline and diesel produced or imported. The percentage
standards are set so that if every obligated party meets the
percentages by acquiring and retiring an appropriate number of RINs,
then the amount of renewable fuel, cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based
diesel (BBD), and advanced biofuel used will meet the

applicable volume requirements on a nationwide basis.
    Sections III through V provide our rationale and basis for the
volume requirements for 2017.\206\ The volumes used to determine the
percentage standards are shown in Table VII-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ The 2017 volume requirement for BBD was established in the
2014-2016 final rule.

 Table VII-1--Volumes for Use in Setting the 2017 Applicable Percentage
                                Standards
                            [Billion gallons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulosic biofuel......................................           0.311
Biomass-based diesel \a\................................            2.00
Advanced biofuel........................................            4.28
Renewable fuel..........................................           19.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Represents physical volume.

    For the purposes of converting these volumes into percentage
standards, we generally use two decimal places to be consistent with
the volume targets as given in the statute, and similarly two decimal
places in the percentage standards. However, for cellulosic biofuel we
use three decimal places in both the volume requirement and percentage
standards to more precisely capture the smaller volume projections and
the unique methodology that in some cases results in estimates of only
a few million gallons for a single producer.

A. Calculation of Percentage Standards

    The formulas used to calculate the percentage standards applicable
to producers and importers of gasoline and diesel are provided in Sec.
80.1405. The formulas rely on estimates of the volumes of gasoline and
diesel fuel, for both highway and nonroad uses, which are projected to
be used in the year in which the standards will apply. The projected
gasoline and diesel volumes are provided by EIA, and include ethanol
and biodiesel used in transportation fuel. Since the percentage
standards apply only to the non-renewable gasoline and diesel produced
or imported, the volumes of ethanol and biodiesel are subtracted out of
the EIA projections of gasoline and diesel.
    Transportation fuels other than gasoline or diesel, such as natural
gas, propane, and electricity from fossil fuels, are not currently
subject to the standards, and volumes of such fuels are not used in
calculating the annual percentage standards. Since under the
regulations the standards apply only to producers and importers of
gasoline and diesel, these are the transportation fuels used to set the
percentage standards, as well as to determine the annual volume
obligations of an individual gasoline or diesel producer or importer.
    As specified in the March 26, 2010 RFS2 final rule, the percentage
standards are based on energy-equivalent gallons of renewable fuel,
with the cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel
standards based on ethanol equivalence and the BBD standard based on
biodiesel equivalence. However, all RIN generation is based on ethanol-
equivalence. For example, the RFS regulations provide that production
or import of a gallon of qualifying biodiesel will lead to the
generation of 1.5 RINs. The formula specified in the regulations for
calculation of the BBD percentage standard is based on biodiesel-
equivalence, and thus assumes that all BBD used to satisfy the BBD
standard is biodiesel and requires that the applicable volume
requirement be multiplied by 1.5. However, BBD often contains some
renewable diesel, and a gallon of renewable diesel typically generates
1.7 RINs.\207\ In addition, there is often some renewable diesel in the
conventional renewable fuel pool. As a result, the actual number of
RINs generated by biodiesel and renewable diesel is used in the context
of our assessing reasonably attainable volumes for purposes of deriving
the applicable volume requirements and associated percentage standards
for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel, and likewise in
obligated parties' determination of compliance with any of the
applicable standards. While there is a difference in the treatment of
biodiesel + renewable diesel in the context of determining the
percentage standard for BBD versus determining the percentage standard
for advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel, it is not a significant
one given our approach to determining the BBD volume requirement; o.
Our intent in setting the BBD applicable volume is to provide an
additional increment of guaranteed volume for BBD, but as described in
Section VI.B, we do not expect the BBD standard to be binding. That is,
we expect that actual supply of BBD, as well as supply of conventional
biodiesel + renewable diesel, will be driven by the advanced biofuel
and total renewable fuel standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ Although in some cases a gallon of renewable diesel
generates either 1.5 or 1.6 RINs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Small Refineries and Small Refiners

    In CAA section 211(o)(9), enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005, and amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007, Congress provided a temporary exemption to small refineries \208\
through December 31, 2010. Congress provided that small refineries
could receive a temporary extension of the exemption beyond 2010 based
either on the results of a required DOE study, or based on an EPA
determination of ``disproportionate economic hardship'' on a case-by-
case basis in response to small refinery petitions. In reviewing
petitions, EPA, in consultation with the Department of Energy,
evaluates the impacts petitioning refineries would likely face in
achieving compliance with the RFS requirements and how compliance would
affect their ability to remain competitive and profitable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ A small refiner that meets the requirements of 40 CFR
80.1442 may also be eligible for an exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has granted some exemptions pursuant to this process in the
past. However, at this time, no exemptions have been approved for 2017,
and therefore we have calculated the percentage standards for this year
without an adjustment for exempted volumes. Any requests for exemptions
for 2017 that are approved after the final rule is released will not be
reflected in the percentage standards that apply to all gasoline and
diesel produced or imported in 2017. As stated in the final rule
establishing the 2011 standards, ``EPA believes the Act is best
interpreted to require issuance of a single annual standard in November
that is applicable in the following calendar year, thereby providing
advance notice and certainty to obligated parties regarding their
regulatory requirements. Periodic revisions to the standards to reflect
waivers issued to small refineries or refiners would be inconsistent
with the statutory text, and would introduce an undesirable level of
uncertainty for obligated parties.'' \209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ See 75 FR 76804 (December 9, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Final Standards

    The formulas in Sec.  80.1405 for the calculation of the percentage
standards require the specification of a total of 14 variables covering
factors such as the renewable fuel volume requirements, projected
gasoline and diesel demand for all states and territories where the RFS
program applies, renewable fuels projected by EIA to be included in the
gasoline and diesel demand, and exemptions for small refineries. The
values of all the variables used for this final rule are shown in Table
VII.C-1.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ To determine the 49-state values for gasoline and diesel,
the amounts of these fuels used in Alaska is subtracted from the
totals provided by DOE. The Alaska fractions are determined from the
June 29, 2016 EIA State Energy Data System (SEDS), Energy
Consumption Estimates.

  Table VII.C-1--Values for Terms in Calculation of the 2017 Standards
                                  \211\
                            [Billion gallons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Term                     Description               Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFVCB......................  Required volume of                    0.311
                              cellulosic biofuel.
RFVBBD.....................  Required volume of biomass-            2.00
                              based diesel.
RFVAB......................  Required volume of advanced            4.28
                              biofuel.
RFVRF......................  Required volume of                    19.28
                              renewable fuel.
G..........................  Projected volume of                  143.61
                              gasoline.
D..........................  Projected volume of diesel.           53.15
RG.........................  Projected volume of                   14.35
                              renewables in gasoline.
RD.........................  Projected volume of                    2.28
                              renewables in diesel.
GS.........................  Projected volume of                    0.00
                              gasoline for opt-in areas.
RGS........................  Projected volume of                    0.00
                              renewables in gasoline for
                              opt-in areas.
DS.........................  Projected volume of diesel             0.00
                              for opt-in areas.
RDS........................  Projected volume of                    0.00
                              renewables in diesel for
                              opt-in areas.
GE.........................  Projected volume of                    0.00
                              gasoline for exempt small
                              refineries.
DE.........................  Projected volume of diesel             0.00
                              for exempt small
                              refineries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Projected volumes of gasoline and diesel, and the renewable fuels
contained within them, were provided by EIA and are consistent with the
October, 2016 version of EIA's Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO).\212\
These projections reflect EIA's judgment of future demand volumes in
2017, accounting for the low oil price environment in 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ See ``Calculation of final % standards for 2017'' in
docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0004.
    \212\ ``EIA projections of transportation fuel for 2017,''
docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the volumes shown in Table VII.C-1, we have calculated the
percentage standards for 2017 as shown in Table VII.C-2.

           Table VII.C-2--Final Percentage Standards for 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellulosic biofuel......................................           0.173
Biomass-based diesel....................................            1.67
Advanced biofuel........................................            2.38
Renewable fuel..........................................           10.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Assessment of Aggregate Compliance

A. Assessment of the Domestic Aggregate Compliance Approach

    The RFS2 regulations contain a provision for renewable fuel
producers who use planted crops and crop residue from U.S. agricultural
land that relieves them of the individual recordkeeping and reporting
requirements concerning the specific land from which their feedstocks
were harvested. To enable this approach, EPA established a baseline
number of acres for U.S. agricultural land in 2007 (the year of EISA
enactment) and determined that as long as this baseline number of acres
was not exceeded, it was unlikely that new land outside of the 2007
baseline would be devoted to crop production based on historical trends
and economic considerations. We therefore provided that renewable fuel
producers using planted crops or crop residue from the U.S. as
feedstock in renewable fuel production need not comply with the
individual recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to
documenting that their feedstocks are renewable biomass, unless EPA
determines through one of its annual evaluations that the 2007 baseline
acreage of 402 million acres agricultural land has been exceeded.
    In the final RFS2 regulations, EPA committed to make an annual
finding concerning whether the 2007 baseline amount of U.S.
agricultural land has been exceeded in a given year. If the baseline is
found to have been exceeded, then producers using U.S. planted crops
and crop residue as feedstocks for renewable fuel production would be
required to comply with individual recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to verify that their feedstocks are renewable biomass.
    The Aggregate Compliance methodology provided for the exclusion of
acreage enrolled in the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) and the
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) from the estimated total U.S.
agricultural land. However, the 2014 Farm Bill terminated the GRP and
WRP as of 2013 and USDA established the Agriculture Conservation
Easement Program (ACEP) with wetlands and land easement components. The
ACEP provides financial and technical assistance to help conserve
agricultural lands and wetlands and their related benefits. Under the
Agricultural Land Easements (ACEP-ALE) component, USDA helps Indian
tribes, state and local governments and non-governmental organizations
protect working agricultural lands and limit non-agricultural uses of
the land. Under the Wetlands Reserve Easements (ACEP-WRE) component,
USDA helps to restore, protect and enhance enrolled wetlands. The WRP
was a voluntary program that offered landowners the opportunity to
protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. The GRP was a
voluntary conservation program the emphasized support for working
grazing operations, enhancement of plant and animal biodiversity, and
protection of grassland under threat of conversion to other uses.
    USDA and EPA concur that the ACEP-WRE and ACEP-ALE represent a
continuation in basic objectives and goals of the original WRP and GRP.
Therefore, it was assumed in this rulemaking that acreage enrolled in
the easement programs would represent a reasonable proxy of WRP and GRP
acreage and was excluded when estimating total U.S. agricultural land.
    Based on data provided by the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) and
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), we have estimated that
U.S. agricultural land reached approximately 380 million acres in 2016,
and thus did not exceed the 2007 baseline acreage. This acreage
estimate is based on the same methodology used to set the 2007 baseline
acreage for U.S. agricultural land in the RFS2 final rulemaking, with
the GRP and WRP substitution as noted above. Specifically, we started
with FSA crop history data for 2016, from which we derived a total
estimated acreage of 380,429,574 acres. We then subtracted the ACEP-ALE
and ACEP-WRE enrolled areas by the end of Fiscal Year 2016, 313,284
acres, to yield an estimate

of approximately 380 million acres of U.S. agricultural land in 2016.
Note that these programs were still in place in 2016. The USDA data
used to make this derivation can be found in the docket to this
rule.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ For the first time since 2013, USDA provided EPA with data
on legacy acreage still covered by the discontinued GRP and WRP.
Given this new data, EPA also estimated the total U.S. agricultural
land taking the GRP and WRP acreage into account. In 2016, combined
land under GRP and WRP totaled 2,966,122 acres. Factoring in the
GRP, WRP, ACEP-WRE, and ACEP-ALE data yields an estimate of
377,150,168 acres or approximately 377 million total acres of U.S.
agricultural land in 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Assessment of the Canadian Aggregate Compliance Approach

    On March 15, 2011, EPA issued a notice of receipt of and solicited
public comment on a petition for EPA to authorize the use of an
aggregate approach for compliance with the Renewable Fuel Standard
renewable biomass requirements, submitted by the Government of Canada.
The petition requested that EPA determine that an aggregate compliance
approach will provide reasonable assurance that planted crops and crop
residue from Canada meet the definition of renewable biomass. After
thorough consideration of the petition, all supporting documentation
provided and the public comments received, EPA determined that the
criteria for approval of the petition were satisfied and approved the
use of an aggregate compliance approach to renewable biomass
verification for planted crops and crop residue grown in Canada.
    The Government of Canada utilized several types of land use data to
demonstrate that the land included in their 124 million acre baseline
is cropland, pastureland or land equivalent to U.S. Conservation
Reserve Program land that was cleared or cultivated prior to December
19, 2007, and was actively managed or fallow and non-forested on that
date (and is therefore RFS2 qualifying land). The total agricultural
land in Canada in 2016 is estimated at 118.4 million acres. This total
agricultural land area includes 94.6 million acres of cropland and
summer fallow, 14.0 million acres of pastureland and 9.8 million acres
of agricultural land under conservation practices. This acreage
estimate is based on the same methodology used to set the 2007 baseline
acreage for Canadian agricultural land in the RFS2 response to
petition. The trigger point for further evaluation of the data for
subsequent years, provided by Canada, is 124 million acres. The data
used to make this calculation can be found in the docket to this rule.

IX. Public Participation

    Many interested parties participated in the rulemaking process that
culminates with this final rule. This process provided opportunity for
submitting written public comments following the proposal that we
published on May 31, 2016 (81 FR 34778), and we also held a public
hearing on June 9, 2016, at which many parties provided both verbal and
written testimony. All comments received, both verbal and written, are
available in EPA docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0004 and we considered these
comments in developing the final rule. Public comments and EPA
responses are discussed throughout this preamble and in the
accompanying RTC document, which is available in the docket for this
action.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of illustrative
costs associated with this action. This analysis is presented in
Section V.D of this preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control numbers 2060-0637 and 2060-0640. The final standards will not
impose new or different reporting requirements on regulated parties
than already exist for the RFS program.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule.
    The small entities directly regulated by the RFS program are small
refiners, which are defined at 13 CFR 121.201. We have evaluated the
impacts of this final rule on small entities from two perspectives: As
if the 2017 standards were a standalone action or if they are a part of
the overall impacts of the RFS program as a whole.
    When evaluating the standards as if they were a standalone action
separate and apart from the original rulemaking which established the
RFS2 program, then the standards could be viewed as increasing the
volumes required of obligated parties between 2016 and 2017. To
evaluate this rule from this perspective, EPA has conducted a screening
analysis \214\ to assess whether it should make a finding that this
action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Currently-available information shows that
the impact on small entities from implementation of this rule would not
be significant. EPA has reviewed and assessed the available
information, which suggests that obligated parties, including small
entities, are generally able to recover the cost of acquiring the RINs
necessary for compliance with the RFS standards through higher sales
prices of the petroleum products they sell than would be expected in
the absence of the RFS program.215 216 This is true whether
they acquire RINs by purchasing renewable fuels with attached RINs or
purchase separated RINs. Even if we were to assume that the cost of
acquiring RINs were not recovered by obligated parties, and we used the
maximum values of the illustrative costs discussed in Section V.D and
the gasoline and diesel fuel volume projections and wholesale prices
from the October 2016 version of EIA's Short-Term Energy Outlook, and
current wholesale fuel prices, a cost-to-sales ratio test shows that
the costs to small entities of the RFS standards are far less than 1%
of the value of their sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ ``Updated Screening Analysis for the Final Renewable Fuel
Standard Program Renewable Volume Obligations for 2017'', memorandum
from Dallas Burkholder and Tia Sutton to EPA Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0004.
    \215\ For a further discussion of the ability of obligated
parties to recover the cost of RINs see ``A Preliminary Assessment
of RIN Market Dynamics, RIN Prices, and Their Effects,'' Dallas
Burkholder, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, US EPA. May
14, 2015, EPA Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111.
    \216\ Knittel, Christopher R., Ben S. Meiselman, and James H.
Stock. ``The Pass-Through of RIN Prices to Wholesale and Retail
Fuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard.'' Working Paper 21343. NBER
Working Paper Series. Available online http://www.nber.org/papers/w21343.pdf.

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

    While the screening analysis described above supports a
certification that this rule would not have a significant economic
impact on small refiners, we continue to believe that it is more
appropriate to consider the standards as a part of ongoing
implementation of the overall RFS program. When considered this way,
the impacts of the RFS program as a whole on small entities were
addressed in the RFS2 final rule (75 FR 14670, March 26, 2010), which
was the rule that implemented the entire program required by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). As such, the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel process
that took place prior to the 2010 rule was also for the entire RFS
program and looked at impacts on small refiners through 2022.
    For the SBREFA process for the RFS2 final rule, EPA conducted
outreach, fact-finding, and analysis of the potential impacts of the
program on small refiners, which are all described in the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, located in the rulemaking docket (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2005-0161). This analysis looked at impacts to all refiners,
including small refiners, through the year 2022 and found that the
program would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, and that this impact was expected to decrease
over time, even as the standards increased. For gasoline and/or diesel
small refiners subject to the standards, the analysis included a cost-
to-sales ratio test, a ratio of the estimated annualized compliance
costs to the value of sales per company. From this test, it was
estimated that all directly regulated small entities would have
compliance costs that are less than one percent of their sales over the
life of the program (75 FR 14862).
    We have determined that this final rule will not impose any
additional requirements on small entities beyond those already
analyzed, since the impacts of this final rule are not greater or
fundamentally different than those already considered in the analysis
for the RFS2 final rule assuming full implementation of the RFS
program. As shown above in Tables I-1 and I.A-1 (and discussed further
in Sections III, IV, and V), this rule establishes the 2017 volume
requirements for cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total
renewable fuel at levels significantly below the statutory volume
targets. This exercise of EPA's waiver authority reduces burdens on
small entities, as compared to the burdens that would be imposed under
the volumes specified in the Clean Air Act in the absence of waivers--
which are the volumes that we assessed in the screening analysis that
we prepared for implementation of the full program. Regarding the
biomass-based diesel standard, we are increasing the volume requirement
for 2018 over the statutory minimum value of 1 billion gallons.
However, this is a nested standard within the advanced biofuel
category, which we are significantly reducing from the statutory volume
targets. As discussed in Section VI, we are setting the 2018 biomass-
based diesel volume requirement at a level below what is anticipated
will be produced and used to satisfy the reduced advanced biofuel
requirement. The net result of the standards being established in this
action is a reduction in burden as compared to implementation of the
statutory volume targets, as was assumed in the RFS2 final rule
analysis.
    While the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, there are compliance
flexibilities in the program that can help to reduce impacts on small
entities. These flexibilities include being able to comply through RIN
trading rather than renewable fuel blending, 20% RIN rollover allowance
(up to 20% of an obligated party's RVO can be met using previous-year
RINs), and deficit carry-forward (the ability to carry over a deficit
from a given year into the following year, providing that the deficit
is satisfied together with the next year's RVO). In the RFS2 final
rule, we discussed other potential small entity flexibilities that had
been suggested by the SBREFA panel or through comments, but we did not
adopt them, in part because we had serious concerns regarding our
authority to do so.
    Additionally, as we realize that there may be cases in which a
small entity experiences hardship beyond the level of assistance
afforded by the program flexibilities, the program provides hardship
relief provisions for small entities (small refiners), as well as for
small refineries.\217\ As required by the statute, the RFS regulations
include a hardship relief provision (at 40 CFR 80.1441(e)(2)) that
allows for a small refinery to petition for an extension of its small
refinery exemption at any time based on a showing that compliance with
the requirements of the RFS program would result in the refinery
experiencing a ``disproportionate economic hardship.'' EPA regulations
provide similar relief to small refiners that are not eligible for
small refinery relief. A small refiner may petition for a small refiner
exemption based on a similar showing that compliance with the
requirements of the RFS program would result in the refiner
experiencing a ``disproportionate economic hardship'' (see 40 CFR
80.1442(h)). EPA evaluates these petitions on a case-by-case basis and
may approve such petitions if it finds that a disproportionate economic
hardship exists. In evaluating such petitions, EPA consults with the
U.S. Department of Energy, and takes the findings of DOE's 2011 Small
Refinery Study and other economic factors into consideration. EPA
successfully implemented these provisions by evaluating petitions for
exemption from 13 small refineries for the 2014 RFS standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ See CAA section 211(o)(9)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that this final rule will not impose additional requirements
on small entities, would decrease burden via a reduction in required
volumes as compared to statutory volume targets, would not change the
compliance flexibilities currently offered to small entities under the
RFS program (including the small refinery hardship provisions we
continue to successfully implement), and available information shows
that the impact on small entities from implementation of this rule
would not be significant viewed either from the perspective of it being
a standalone action or a part of the overall RFS program, we have
therefore concluded that this action would have no net regulatory
burden for directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This final action contains a federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538, that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a written
statement required under section 202 of UMRA. This statement is
presented in Section V.D in the form of illustrative cost estimates of
the 2017 RFS standards. This action implements mandates specifically
and explicitly set forth in CAA section 211(o) and we believe that this
action represents the least costly, most cost-effective approach to
achieve the statutory requirements of the rule.
    This action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This final rule will be implemented at the
Federal level and affects transportation fuel refiners, blenders,
marketers, distributors, importers, exporters, and renewable fuel
producers and importers. Tribal governments would be affected only to
the extent they produce, purchase, and use regulated fuels. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it implements specific standards
established by Congress in statutes (CAA section 211(o)) and does not
concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This action establishes the required
renewable fuel content of the transportation fuel supply for 2017,
consistent with the CAA and waiver authorities provided therein. The
RFS program and this rule are designed to achieve positive effects on
the nation's transportation fuel supply, by increasing energy
independence and lowering lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of
transportation fuel.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This final rule does not affect the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment by applicable air quality standards.
This action does not relax the control measures on sources regulated by
the RFS regulations and therefore would not cause emissions increases
from these sources.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

XI. Statutory Authority

    Statutory authority for this action comes from section 211 of the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545. Additional support for the procedural
and compliance related aspects of this final rule come from sections
114, 208, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7542, and
7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports,
Oil imports, Petroleum, Renewable fuel.

    Dated: November 23, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part
80 as follows:

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545, and 7601(a).

Subpart M--[Amended]

0
2. Section 80.1405 is amended by adding new paragraph (a)(8) to read as
follows:

Sec.  80.1405  What are the Renewable Fuel Standards?

    (a) * * *
    (8) Renewable Fuel Standards for 2017.
    (i) The value of the cellulosic biofuel standard for 2017 shall be
0.173 percent.
    (ii) The value of the biomass-based diesel standard for 2017 shall
be 1.67 percent.
    (iii) The value of the advanced biofuel standard for 2017 shall be
2.38 percent.
    (iv) The value of the renewable fuel standard for 2017 shall be
10.70 percent.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-28879 Filed 12-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5254-5256]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01832]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0611; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-019-AD;
Amendment 39-17731; AD 2014-02-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Beechcraft Corporation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-27-51 for
certain Beechcraft Corporation Models 1900, 1900C, and 1900D airplanes.
AD 2011-27-51 required inspecting the elevator bob-weight and attaching
linkage for correct installation and for damage or deformation to the
weight and/or weight bracket with corrective action as necessary. This
AD requires installation of the secondary elevator bob-weight stop
bolt. The elevator bob-weight (stabilizer weight) traveling past its
stop bolt may allow the attaching linkage to move over-center and lead
to reduced nose down elevator control. We are issuing this AD to
correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 7, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 7,
2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
January 18, 2012 (77 FR 2439, January 18, 2012).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Beechcraft Corporation at P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.beechcraft.com. Beechcraft Corporation publishes service
information for the Beechcraft Corporation airplanes affected by this
AD action. You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0611; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Ristow, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room
100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (316) 946-
4107; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2011-27-51, Amendment 39-16915 (77 FR 2439,
January 18, 2012), (``AD 2011-27-51''). AD 2011-27-51 applied to
certain Beechcraft Corporation Models 1900, 1900C, and 1900D airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2013 (78 FR
42724). The NPRM proposed to retain all of the requirements of AD 2011-
27-51 and add the requirement to install the secondary elevator bob-
weight stop bolt, Kit 114-5060. We are issuing this AD to

prevent the elevator bob-weight (stabilizer weight) from traveling past
its stop bolt and allowing the attaching linkage to move over-center
and lead to reduced nose down elevator control, which could result in
loss of control.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Requested Change to Compliance Time

    Pat Kremer requested we change the compliance time for installing
the secondary elevator bob-weight stop bolt Kit 114-5060 from 600 hours
time-in-service (TIS) to 1,200 hours TIS or 24 months to coincide with
the continuous inspection program for the Model 1900C airplanes. This
requested change would minimize the impact or down time for the
airplanes.
    We disagree with this comment. We do not believe that 1,200 hours
TIS or 24 months will adequately mitigate the unsafe condition on the
entire affected airplane fleet. We determined that 600 hours TIS is the
appropriate compliance time to address the identified unsafe condition.
The proposed compliance time change may be adequate to address the
unsafe condition on certain individual airplanes, and the FAA will
evaluate any alternative method of compliance (AMOC) request we receive
as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
    We did not make any changes to this final rule AD action based on
this comment.

Requested Clarification of Kit Instructions

    Travis Reinhardt requested the service information specify that a
collar be used with the optional Hi-Lok pin. He also requested the
service information contain better instructions for inhibiting and un-
inhibiting the control system during installation of the secondary
elevator bob-weight stop bolt Kit 114-5060.
    We agree with this comment. The collar should be specified to
provide complete instructions for installation of the secondary
elevator bob-weight stop bolt Kit 114-5060. The manufacturer has
revised the kit installation instructions to specify the collar for use
with the optional Hi-Lok pin and to clarify the intent for inhibiting
the control system during installation of the kit. However, these
clarification changes to the kit installation instructions do not
affect the language used in this AD action or require any additional
action for those airplanes that previously had the kit incorporated.
    We did not make any changes to the actions required in this final
rule AD action based on this comment.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 42724, July 17, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 42724, July 17, 2013).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 165 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
             Action                  Labor cost              Parts cost               product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of the elevator bob-  1 work-hour x $85  Not applicable..............             $85         $14,025
 weight and attaching linkage.    per hour = $85.
Installation of the secondary    4 work-hours x     $2,740......................           3,080         508,200
 elevator bob-weight stop bolt,   $85 per hour =
 Kit 114[dash]5060.               $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The on-condition costs for any corrective action that may be
necessary based on the above inspection would vary from airplane to
airplane, and we have no way of determining that cost.
    The cost of the inspection is a retained cost from AD 2011-27-51
(77 FR 2439, January 18, 2012) and does not add a burden over what was
already imposed.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2011-27-51, Amendment 39-16915 (77 FR 2439, January 18, 2012), and
adding the following new AD:

2014-02-03 Beechcraft Corporation: Amendment 39-17731 ; Docket No.
FAA-2013-0611; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-019-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 7, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2011-27-51, Amendment 39-16915 (77 FR
2439, January 18, 2012).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Beechcraft Corporation
airplanes in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, certificated in
any category:

           Table 1 to Paragraph (c) of This AD--Applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Models                             Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) 1900............................   UA-3.
(2) 1900C...........................  UB-1 through UB-74 and UC-1
                                       through UC-174.
(3) 1900C (Military)................  UD-1 through UD-6.
(4) 1900D...........................  UE-1 through UE-439.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of the elevator bob-weight
(stabilizer weight) traveling past its stop bolt and allowing the
attaching linkage to move over-center, which could lead to reduced
nose down elevator control. Also, Beechcraft Corporation designed a
secondary elevator bob-weight stop bolt to reduce the possibility of
the bob-weight from traveling past the stop bolt. We are issuing
this AD to prevent the elevator bob-weight (stabilizer weight) from
traveling past its stop bolt and allowing the attaching linkage to
move over-center and lead to reduced nose down elevator control,
which could result in loss of control.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done. Paragraph (g) of this AD only applies to
airplanes where the inspection required by AD 2011-27-51 (77 FR
2439, January 18, 2012) has not been done.

(g) Retained Inspections

    Within the next 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) after January 18,
2012 (the effective date of AD 2011-27-51 (77 FR 2439, January 18,
2012)), inspect the elevator bob-weight installation for the
following conditions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4)
in this AD. Use Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Safety
Communiqu[eacute] No. 321, dated December 2011.
    (1) The correct positioning of the elevator control column link
assembly, (part number (P/N) 101-524112-1 (1900/1900C) or P/N 101-
524112-5 (1900D)). With the elevator control column in the full nose
down position (control column forward), the link must form an angle
between the link attachment point at the control column and the bell
crank pivot point as shown in the Hawker Beechcraft Corporation
Safety Communiqu[eacute] photo labeled ``Correct Link Orientation.''
The link should be trailing aft from the control column assembly.
The term ``nose down'' corresponds to the airplane nose down, down
elevator, and control column forward position as used in this AD and
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Safety Communiqu[eacute] No. 321,
dated December 2011.
    (2) The clearance of the bob-weight stop bolt. With the elevator
control column in the full nose down position (control column
forward), the stabilizer weight stop bolt must have positive
clearance with the face of the stabilizer weight.
    (3) The condition of the bob-weight and alignment with the stop
bolt. Inspect for evidence of scraping along either side of the
weight by the stop bolt. With side pressure applied by hand to the
stabilizer weight, no part of the stop bolt should protrude beyond
the face of the stabilizer weight on either edge.
    (4) The condition of the bob-weight support bracket. Inspect for
evidence of damage or deformation by contact with the weight
assembly.

(h) Installation of Kit 114-5060

    Within the next 600 hours TIS after March 7, 2014 (the effective
date of this AD), install the secondary elevator bob-weight stop
bolt, Kit 114-5060, following Beechcraft Corporation Mandatory
Service Bulletin No. SB 27-4119, dated June 2013.

(i) Corrective Actions

    If any discrepancies are found during the inspection required in
paragraph (g) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, and during
the installation required in paragraph (h) of this AD, before
further flight, contact Beechcraft Corporation Technical Support. If
a deviation from FAA-approved type design is required, then request
an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) as described in paragraph
(j) of this AD. You may contact Beechcraft Technical Support by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 2011-27-51 (77 FR 2439, January 18,
2012) are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this
AD.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Don Ristow,
Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (316) 946-
4107; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 7, 2014.
    (i) Beechcraft Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB 27-
4119, dated June 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 18, 2012 (77 FR 2439, January 18, 2012).
    (i) Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Safety Communiqu[eacute] No.
321, dated December 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Beechcraft Corporation at P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.beechcraft.com.
    (6) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 15, 2014.
Steven W. Thompson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-01832 Filed 1-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78236-78237]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31415]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Lock+\TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XLVII, FFP Missouri 16, LLC, et al.;
Notice of Competing Preliminary Permit Applications Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Comments, and Motions To Intervene

December 8, 2010.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lock+\TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XLVII........  Project No. 13743-000.
FFP Missouri 16, LLC......................  Project No. 13753-000.
Solia 7 Hydroelectric, LLC................  Project No. 13769-000.
Three Rivers Hydro, LLC...................  Project No. 13785-000.
Opekiska Hydro, LLC.......................  Project No. 13791-000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 18, 2010, Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVII, FFP Missouri 16,
LLC, Solia 7 Hydroelectric, LLC, and Three Rivers Hydro, LLC, filed
applications, and on May 19, 2010, Opekiska Hydro, LLC, filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower at the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Opekiska Lock and Dam on the Monongahela River in
Monongahela County, West Virginia. The sole purpose of a preliminary
permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does
not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing
activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others
without the owners' express permission.
    Descriptions of the proposed Opekiska Lock and Dam Projects:
    Lock+\TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XLVII's proposed project (Project No.
13743-000) would consist of: (1) One lock frame module 109 feet long,
40 feet high, and weighing 1.16 million pounds each, and containing 10
generating units with a total combined capacity of 20 megawatts (MW);
(2) a 57-foot-high, 75-foot-long prefabricated concrete wall attached
to pilings in the river to support the lock frame module; (3) a 25-
foot-long, 50-foot-wide switchyard containing a transformer; and (4) a
4,000-foot-long, 69-kilovolt (kV) transmission line to an existing
substation. The proposed project would have an average annual
generation of 87.66 gigawatt-hours (GWh), which would be sold to a
local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Mark R. Stover, Hydro Green Energy LLC, 5090

Richmond Avenue 390, Houston, TX 77056; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
x709.
    FFP Missouri 16, LLC's proposed project (Project No. 13753-000)
would consist of: (1) An excavated intake and tailrace channel slightly
longer and wider than the powerhouse; (2) a 160-foot-long, 45-foot-
wide, 60-foot-high powerhouse containing one generating unit having a
total installed capacity of 10 MW; and (3) a 4,900-foot-long, ranging
from 34.0 to 230-kV, transmission line. The proposed project would have
an average annual generation of 42.0 GWh, which would be sold to a
local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978)
283-2822.
    Solia 7 Hydroelectric, LLC's proposed project (Project No. 13769-
000) would consist of: (1) A 300-foot-long, 160-foot-wide excavated
intake channel; (2) a 200-foot-long, 160-foot-wide excavated tailrace;
(3) a 45-foot-long, 160-foot-wide, 60-foot-high concrete powerhouse
containing one generating unit with a capacity of 10 MW; and (4) a
4,900-foot-long, transmission line ranging from 34.0 to 230-kV. The
proposed project would have an average annual generation of 42 GWh,
which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Douglas Spaulding, P.E., Nelson Energy, 8441
Wayzata Blvd., Suite 101, Golden Valley, MN, 55426; phone (952) 544-
8133.
    Three Rivers Hydro, LLC's proposed project (Project No. 13785-000)
would consist of: (1) A 75-foot-long, 65-foot-wide, 20-foot-deep
excavated power canal; (2) a 55-foot-long, 65-foot-wide, 8-foot-deep
excavated tailrace; (3) a 45-foot-long, 110-foot-wide, 40-foot-high
concrete powerhouse containing two generating units having a total
installed capacity of 4.5 MW; and (4) a 4,900-foot-long, 23-kV
transmission line. The proposed project would have an average annual
generation of 24.0 GWh, which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Cornelius J. Collins, Three Rivers Hydro,
LLC, 316 South Clinton Street, Suite 4, Syracuse, NY 13202; phone (315)
477-9914.
    Opekiska Hydro, LLC's proposed project (Project No. 13791-000)
would consist of: (1) A 125-foot-long, excavated power canal; (2) a
190-foot-long excavated tailrace; (3) a powerhouse containing a 4.2 MW
generating unit; (4) a switchyard; and (5) a 0.8-mile-long, 69.0-kV
transmission line. The proposed project would have an average annual
generation of 13.9 GWh, which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent Smith, Symbiotics LLC., P.O. Box 535,
Rigby, ID 83442; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Gaylord Hoisington,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at (866) 208-
3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13743-000, 13753-000, 13769-000, 13785-000,
or 13791-000) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-31415 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P