[Federal Register: August 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 152)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45673-45679]
[DOCID:fr06au08-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0121; FRL-8701-8]
RIN 2060-AO07

National Emission Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
From the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry for Process
Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater; and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On November 10, 2003, EPA promulgated national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing. The rule is referred to as the
miscellaneous organic NESHAP or the MON. The MON incorporates by
reference the wastewater tank requirements in the National Emission
Standards for Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry for Process Vents, Storage
Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater, which EPA promulgated on
April 24, 1994, and which is referred to as the hazardous organic
NESHAP or the HON. In this action EPA proposes to amend the HON, and
thereby, the MON, by adding an equivalent means of emission limitation
for wastewater tanks. This action also clarifies and corrects technical
inconsistencies that have been discovered in the MON.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before September 22,
2008.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by August 18, 2008, a public hearing will be held on
August 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0121, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of
two copies.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver your
comments to: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20004. Please include a total
of two copies. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. We request that a separate copy of
each public comment also be sent to the contact person listed below
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0121. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information

about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket,
EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Hearing. If you are interested in attending the public
hearing, contact Ms. Janet Eck at<PHONE_NUMBER> to verify that a
hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at
10 a.m. at EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research
Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. If no one contacts EPA
requesting to speak at a public hearing concerning this rule by August
18, 2008 this hearing will be cancelled without further notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy McDonald, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-0246; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
          Category                   NAICS *         regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................  3251, 3252, 3253,     Producers of
                               3254, 3255, 3256,     specialty organic
                               and 3259, with        chemicals,
                               several exceptions.   explosives, certain
                                                     polymers and
                                                     resins, and certain
                                                     pesticide
                                                     intermediates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* North American Industrial Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.2435. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the proposed rule is also available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network. Following signature, a copy of
the proposed rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various
areas of air pollution control.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. What amendments are we proposing for the HON, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart G?
II. What technical corrections are we proposing for the MON, 40 CFR
part 63, subpart FFFF?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. What amendments are we proposing for the HON, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart G?

    The EPA has received a request from Dow Chemical Company for
approval of an equivalent means emission limitation for wastewater
tanks subject to the MON. The MON incorporates by reference the
wastewater tank requirements of the HON in Sec.  63.2485(d) and Table 7
by requiring compliance with Sec. Sec.  63.132 through 63.148 of the
HON. With one exception, the standards for wastewater tanks in Sec.
63.133(a) of the HON require the owner or operator of an affected
wastewater tank to operate and maintain a fixed roof, an internal
floating roof, or an external floating roof. Under certain
circumstances or as an alternative to these requirements, the owner or
operator may operate and maintain a fixed roof with a closed-vent
system and control device. If a fixed roof with a closed vent system
and control device is used, Sec.  63.133(b) requires that each opening
in the roof be closed. The request and evaluation submitted by Dow
Chemicals is to use a fixed roof with openings under negative pressure
and vapors routed through a closed vent system to a control device as
an equivalent means of emission limitation to the fixed roof vented to
control device.
    An owner or operator of an affected source covered by the HON may
request approval to use an equivalent means of emission limitation in
accordance with Sec.  63.133(a)(2)(iv). The determination of
equivalency to the reduction in emissions achieved by the requirements
in Sec.  63.133(a)(2)(i) is based on actual emission tests or
engineering evaluation and evaluated according to Sec.  63.102(b).
Under Sec.  63.102(b), if, in the judgment of the Administrator, an
equivalent means of emission limitation will achieve a reduction in
organic hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions at least equivalent to
the reduction in organic HAP emissions from that source achieved under
any design, equipment,

work practice, or operational standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart G,
the Administrator will publish in the Federal Register a notice
permitting the use of the alternative means for purposes of compliance
with that requirement. Any such notice shall be published only after
public notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
    Moreover, the proposed work practice is an appropriate standard
under section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Specifically, CAA
section 112(h)(2)(B) provides that a work practice standard can be
issued in lieu of an emission standard where it is ``not feasible to
prescribe or enforce an emission standard.'' CAA section 112(h)(2)(B)
defines the phrase ``not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission
standard,'' to mean a situation where the Administrator determines that
``the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of
sources is not practicable due to technological and economic
limitations.'' The proposed work practice is consistent with CAA
section 112(h)(2)(B) since applying a measurement methodology to this
class of sources is not technologically feasible due to the number of
openings and possible emissions points. Emissions from fixed roof tanks
are evaporative losses that result from barometric pressure and ambient
temperature changes, as well as filling and emptying operations. The
flow rate of vent emissions from a tank is very low, except during
filling. The concentration of HAP in the vent stream varies with the
degree of saturation of HAP in the tank vapor space. The degree of
saturation depends on such factors as HAP vapor pressure, tank size,
and liquid throughput. Low flow rate and varying concentration make
emission measurement impractical.
    We discussed work practice standards for wastewater tanks in the
preamble to the proposed HON rule (57 FR 62641). We stated:

    Although considered first, it was determined that a numerical
standard would not be feasible because it would be difficult to
capture and measure emissions from this equipment for the purpose of
evaluating compliance.

    We are considering the Dow Chemical Company's request for a
determination of equivalency under Sec. Sec.  63.102(b) and
63.133(a)(2)(iv) since standards for tanks are work practice standards.
Design features of Dow's wastewater tank include a negative pressure
generated from the thermal oxidizer blower to draw the clarifier vent
stream to the thermal oxidizer, an air sweep across the headspace to
minimize accumulation of flammables, and a low pressure water seal
system for the rotating raker arm structure. Dow developed the patented
design to address safety and operational issues inherent in wastewater
treatment tanks. The tank has uniform air inlets around the
circumference of the tank at the roof for evenly distributed air flow
into the clarifier.
    When a fixed roof with a closed vent system and control device is
used to comply with the requirements for wastewater tanks, the owner or
operator must meet the requirements in Sec.  63.133(b). Paragraphs
Sec.  63.133(b)(1), (2), and (3) contain requirements for the fixed
roof, the control device, and the closed vent system, respectively.
Paragraph Sec.  63.133(b)(1)(i) requires the fixed roof and all
openings be maintained in accordance with the no detectable emissions
requirements in Sec.  63.148 and paragraph Sec.  63.133(b)(1)(ii)
requires each opening in the fixed roof be maintained in a closed
position. The request and evaluation submitted by Dow Chemicals is to
use a fixed roof with openings under negative pressure and vapors
routed through a closed vent system to a control device as an
equivalent means of emission limitation to the fixed roof vented to
control device. Since the performance of the closed vent system and
control device would be equivalent, Dow's application for equivalency
must demonstrate that the fixed roof with openings under negative
pressure performs at least as well as the fixed roof.
    To show equivalency under Sec. Sec.  63.102(b) and
63.133(a)(2)(iv), Dow tested for detectable emissions at the openings
of the fixed roof under negative pressure. Dow obtained flame
ionization detection (FID) readings at these openings and found meter
readings of less than 500 parts per million by volume (ppmv) above
background. These results indicate no detectable emissions according to
Sec.  63.148(d).
    Moreover, Dow correctly states that an enclosure with openings
under negative pressure has previously been considered by EPA and is an
accepted control alternative under the NESHAP for the pulp and paper
industry (40 CFR part 63, subpart S) as well as a control requirement
under the Benzene Waste NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart FF).
    The Pulp and Paper NESHAP requires pulping equipment systems be
enclosed and vapors be vented to a closed vent system and routed to a
control device. Each enclosure must maintain negative pressure at each
opening. The owner or operator is required to demonstrate initially and
annually that each enclosure opening is maintained at a negative
pressure using an anemometer, smoke tubes, or other acceptable test
method to demonstrate flow into the enclosure opening.
    The Benzene Waste NESHAP has provisions for tanks maintained at a
pressure less than atmospheric pressure. The standard requires a fixed-
roof and closed-vent system that routes all vapors from a tank to a
control device. In lieu of maintaining all openings in a closed and
sealed position, the owner or operator may choose to maintain the tank
at a pressure less than atmospheric pressure.
    After considering the information in Dow's request and reviewing
prior EPA judgments, we have concluded that Dow has demonstrated that
maintaining a fixed roof with openings under negative pressure achieves
an equivalent emissions reduction compared to maintaining a fixed roof
with no openings as required by Sec. Sec.  63.102(b) and
63.133(a)(2)(iv).
    Therefore, we are proposing to amend Sec.  63.133(b) to allow a
fixed roof with openings maintained at negative pressure for owners or
operators complying with Sec.  63.133(a)(2)(i) for a fixed roof and
closed vent system that routes vapors to a control device.
    We are also proposing monitoring requirements to accompany the
proposed equivalent means of emission limitation, which demonstrate
that the openings in the enclosure are maintained under negative
pressure throughout the full range of operating conditions, including
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

II. What technical corrections are we proposing for the MON, 40 CFR
part 63, subpart FFFF?

    We are proposing to edit several provisions to clarify our intent.
These proposed changes are described in Table 1 of this preamble.

  Table 1--Technical Clarifications and Corrections to the Mon, 40 CFR
                          Part 63, Subpart FFFF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Subpart FFFF              Description of proposed correction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.2450(o).................  We are adding language to clarify
                                     that, if hydrogen halide and
                                     halogen HAP in a vent stream must
                                     be controlled to meet the emission
                                     limits in Table 3 to subpart FFFF
                                     of 40 CFR part 63, then that vent
                                     stream may not be vented to a
                                     flare. This clarifies our intent
                                     that all other vent streams that
                                     contain hydrogen halide and halogen
                                     HAP may be vented to a flare.
Sec.   63.2460(a).................  We are proposing language to clarify
                                     that any combination of emission
                                     limits for batch process vents
                                     (items 1.a, 1.b, and/or 1.c in
                                     Table 2) may be applied to batch
                                     process vents.
Sec.   63.2460(c)(2)(v)...........  We are proposing to add language to
                                     clarify that the requirement to
                                     demonstrate that a process
                                     condenser is properly operated
                                     applies only in the case where a
                                     HAP is heated above its boiling
                                     point. This requirement only
                                     applies to HAP in batch process
                                     vents and does not apply to HAP as
                                     an impurity.
Sec.   63.2465(b).................  We are proposing to apply the outlet
                                     concentration limit to controlled
                                     and uncontrolled process vents.
Sec.   63.2470(c).................  For storage tanks we are proposing
                                     to incorporate by reference the
                                     monitoring requirements in Sec.
                                     63.1258(b)(1)(v) for
                                     nonregenerative carbon adsorbers.
Sec.   63.2485(n)(1)..............  We are adding neutralization units
                                     to the requirement that wastewater
                                     must be hard-piped between
                                     wastewater treatment tanks and the
                                     activated sludge unit.
Sec.   63.2520(c)(2)..............  We are correcting the reference to
                                     paragraph Sec.   63.2460(c)(5), the
                                     referenced paragraph is Sec.
                                     63.2450(k)(6).
Sec.   63.2550(i).................  1. We are proposing to add a
                                     definition for the term ``bench-
                                     scale process.'' The term will mean
                                     the same as ``bench-scale batch
                                     process,'' as defined in Sec.
                                     63.161.
                                    2. We are proposing to correct the
                                     definition for the term
                                     ``miscellaneous organic chemical
                                     manufacturing process'' by removing
                                     extruder as an endpoint for
                                     processes without an extruder.
Table 6 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart  We are deleting entry 2 as intended
 FFFF.                               (see 70 FR 73121, December 8,
                                     2005). An entry for new sources is
                                     not necessary.
Table 7 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart  We are proposing certain wastewater
 FFF.                                requirements as an alternative for
                                     liquid streams in open systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and is,
therefore, not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The action does not impose any new information collection burden.
The proposed amendments would give owners and operators another
compliance option. Since these changes have the potential to result in
minor reductions in the information collection burden, the Information
Collection Request has not been revised. However, OMB has previously
approved the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulation at 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0533. The OMB control numbers for
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed
amendments on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business ranging from up to 500 employees to up to 1,000 employees,
depending on the NAICS code; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that
is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The
maximum number of employees to be considered a small business for each
NAICS code is shown in the preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 16178).
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, 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, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    The proposed amendments include an additional compliance option for
wastewater tanks that provide small entities with greater flexibility
to comply with the standards. We have therefore concluded that this
proposed rule amendments will relieve regulatory burden for all
affected small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, we
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate 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. This action clarifies and corrects technical
inconsistencies that have been discovered. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. These rule amendments clarify and correct technical
inconsistencies, thus, should not affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities
are owned or operated by State or local governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The
proposed rule amendments provide an owner or operator with an
additional option for complying with the emission limits and other
requirements in the rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
the proposed rule amendments.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from tribal officials.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the
Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
solely on technology performance.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because they do not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The proposed rule amendments do not relax the control
measures on sources regulated by the rule and, therefore, will not
cause emissions increases from these sources.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 31, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart G--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.133 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.133  Process wastewater provisions--Wastewater tanks.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) If the fixed-roof and closed-vent system is operated such
that a negative pressure is maintained at each opening in the fixed
roof, then paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section does not apply. Under
representative conditions, demonstrate initially and annually that each
opening is maintained at negative pressure as specified in Sec.
63.457(e). For a range of operating conditions, the owner or operator
shall comply with Sec.  63.145(a)(4)(i).
* * * * *

Subpart FFFF--[Amended]

    3. Section 63.2450 is amended by revising paragraph (o) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.2450   What are my general requirements for complying with
this subpart?

* * * * *
    (o) You may not use a flare to control halogenated vent streams or
hydrogen halide and halogen HAP emissions to comply with Table 3.
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.2460 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and the
first sentence in paragraph (c)(2)(v) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.2460   What requirements must I meet for batch process vents?

    (a) You must meet each emission limit, or combination thereof, in
Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you, and you must meet each
applicable requirement specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) If a process condenser is used for boiling operations in which
a HAP (not as an impurity) is heated to the boiling point, you must
demonstrate that it is properly operated according to the procedures
specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i)(C)(4) and (d)(3)(iii)(B), and the
demonstration must occur only during the boiling operation.* * *
* * * * *
    5. Section 63.2465 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  63.2465   What requirements must I meet for process vents that
emit hydrogen halide and halogen HAP or HAP metals?

* * * * *
    (b) If any process vents within the process contain greater than 20
parts per million by volume (ppmv) hydrogen halide or halogen HAP, you
must determine and sum the uncontrolled hydrogen halide and halogen HAP
emissions from each of the process vents within the process using
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1257(d)(2)(i) and (ii).
* * * * *
    6. Section 63.2470 is amended by adding new paragraph (c)(3) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.2470   What requirements must I meet for storage tanks?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) For nonregenerative carbon adsorbers, you may choose to comply
with the monitoring requirements in Sec.  63.1258(b)(v) in lieu of
Sec.  63.995(c).
* * * * *
    7. Section 63.2485 is amended by revising the first sentence in
paragraph (n)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.2485   What requirements must I meet for wastewater streams
and liquid streams in open systems within an MCPU?

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (1) Wastewater must be hard-piped between the equalization unit,
neutralization unit, clarifier, and activated sludge unit.* * *
* * * * *
    8. Section 63.2520 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.2520   What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Descriptions of daily or per batch demonstrations to verify
that control devices subject to Sec.  63.2450(k)(6) are operated as
designed.
* * * * *
    9. Section 63.2550 is amended in paragraph (i) as follows:
    a. Adding a new definition for the term ``Bench-scale process'' in
alphabetical order;
    b. Revising paragraph (6) to the definition for ``Miscellaneous
organic chemical manufacturing process''.

Sec.  63.2550   What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    Bench-scale process means a batch process (other than a research
and development facility) that is operated on a small scale, such as
one capable of being located on a laboratory bench top. This bench-
scale equipment will typically include reagent feed vessels, a small
reactor and associated product separator, recovery and holding
equipment. These processes are only capable of producing small
quantities of product.
* * * * *
    Miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing process
* * * * *
    (6) The end of a process that produces a solid material is either
up to and including the dryer or extruder, or for a polymer production
process without a dryer or extruder, it is up to and including the die
plate or solid-state reactor, except in two cases. If the dryer,
extruder, die plate, or solid-state reactor is followed by an operation
that is designed and operated to remove HAP solvent or residual HAP
monomer from the solid, then the solvent removal operation is the last
step in the process. If the dried solid is diluted or mixed with a HAP-
based solvent, then the solvent removal operation is the last step in
the process.
* * * * *

Table 6 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--[Amended]

    10. Table 6 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended by removing entry
2.

Table 7 to Subpart FFFF of Part 63--[Amended]

    11. Table 7 to subpart FFFF of part 63 is amended by revising entry
3 to read as follows:
* * * * *

Table 7--To Subpart FFFF of Part 63--Requirements for Wastewater Streams
            and Liquid Streams in Open Systems Within an MCPU
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For each . . .                       You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
3. Liquid streams in an open        Comply with the requirements in Sec.
 system within an MCPU.                63.149 and the requirements
                                     referenced therein, except as
                                     specified in Sec.   63.2485. You
                                     may comply with the requirements in
                                     Sec.   63.133(b)(1)(ii) for tanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-18142 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 23 (Friday, February 2, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4845]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02082]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0085]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Anacostia River, Washington, DC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge
across the Anacostia River, mile 1.2, at Washington, DC. The deviation
is necessary to accommodate the construction and replacement of the
existing Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge with a fixed bridge on an
alignment 18 feet south of the existing bridge. The current Frederick
Douglass Memorial Bridge will be removed in its entirety. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position during construction.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on February 2, 2018,
through 6 a.m. on August 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2018-0085], is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Marty Bridges, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-
6422, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The District of Columbia Department of
Transportation, who owns and operates the Frederick Douglass Memorial
Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating
regulation. This temporary deviation is necessary to facilitate the
construction and replacement of the existing Frederick Douglass
Memorial Bridge with a fixed bridge on an alignment 18 feet south of
the existing bridge. The existing bridge is a swing span bridge, and
has a vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position of 42
feet above mean high water.
    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.253. Under
this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-
to-navigation position from 6 a.m. on February 2, 2018, through 6 a.m.
on August 1, 2018. The Anacostia River is used by a variety of vessels
including small commercial vessels and recreational vessels. The Coast
Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in
publishing this temporary deviation.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies
and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass
through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also
inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast
Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge
so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts
caused by this temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: January 30, 2018.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-02082 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 139 (Friday, July 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38937-38940]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15693]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 384

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0198]
RIN 2126-AC36

Commercial Driver's License Standards, Requirements and
Penalties; Exclusively Electronic Exchange of Driver History Record
Information

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA codifies the statutory requirement that State driver
licensing agencies (SDLAs) implement a system and practices for the
exclusively electronic exchange of driver history record (DHR)
information through the Commercial Driver's License Information System
(CDLIS), including the posting of convictions, withdrawals, and
disqualifications. The rule aligns FMCSA's regulations with existing
statutory requirements set forth in the Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The rule also establishes a date by
which States must be in substantial compliance with this final rule.

DATES:

    Effective Date: This final rule is effective August 23, 2021.

    Compliance Date: Compliance with the final rule is required August
22, 2024.
    Petitions for Reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be submitted to the FMCSA Administrator no later
than August 23, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joshua Jones, Commercial Driver's
License Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    For access to docket FMCSA-2020-0198 to read background documents,
go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2020-0198/document at
any time, or to Dockets Operations at U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590-0001, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

II. Executive Summary

    This rule revises 49 CFR 384.208, Notification of disqualification,
and 384.209, Notification of traffic violations, to require that States
implement a system and practices for the exclusively electronic
exchange of DHR information through CDLIS, including the posting of
convictions, withdrawals, and disqualifications. The requirements are
mandated by sections 32305(a)(1) and 32305(b)(1)(B) of MAP-21 (Pub. L.
112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 792, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31309(e)(4)(A)(ii)
and 31311(a)(23)). The purpose of the rule is to align FMCSA's
regulations with existing statutory requirements. States must achieve
substantial compliance with this requirement as soon as practicable,
but not later than 3 years after the effective date of the final rule.
``Substantial compliance'' means that a State meets this requirement
``by means of the demonstrable combined effect of its statutes,
regulations, administrative procedures and practices, organizational
structures, internal control mechanisms, resource assignments
(facilities, equipment, and personnel), and enforcement practices.'' 49
CFR 384.301(a).
    Because all States currently have the technical capability to send
DHR information electronically through CDLIS, including convictions,
withdrawals, and disqualifications, the Agency does not expect this
rule to result in incremental costs or benefits to the States. Costs
and benefits are discussed further below in Section VI.

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This final rule is based on the general authority of 49 U.S.C.
chapter 313. The provisions in 49 U.S.C. chapter 313, implemented in 49
CFR parts 383 and 384, establish the commercial driver's license (CDL)
and commercial learner's permit (CLP) programs, as well as the CDLIS.
The CDLIS is a national information technology system facilitating the
electronic exchange of driver-specific data among the States, including
commercial license status and driving history (49 U.S.C. 31309). The
States are required to ensure that CDL and CLP holders convicted of
serious traffic violations are prohibited from operating a CMV for the
periods prescribed (49 U.S.C. 31310). The Secretary of Transportation
(the Secretary) is directed to monitor the States' compliance with the
licensing, testing, and qualification standards set forth in the
statute (49 U.S.C. 31311). The goal of these provisions is to improve
highway safety by ensuring that drivers of large trucks and buses are
qualified to operate those vehicles, and to remove unqualified drivers
from public roads.
    As noted above, this final rule derives from the specific authority
of sections 32305(a)(1) and 32305(b)(1)(B) of MAP-21. Those provisions
require, respectively, that States use CDLIS to receive and submit
driver conviction and disqualification data, and that, to avoid having
apportionments from the Highway Trust Fund under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1)
and (b)(2) withheld, States must implement procedures for the
exclusively electronic exchange of DHR information on CDLIS, including
the posting of convictions, withdrawals, and disqualifications. This
final rule incorporates those requirements into the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR).
    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that notice and
comment are not required when the agency finds ``good cause'' to
dispense with such procedures, and incorporates the finding, and a
brief statement of reasons supporting the finding, in the rule issued.
Good cause exists when the agency determines that notice and public
comment procedures ``are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest'' (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). In this case, Congress did not
vest any discretion in the Secretary for carrying out the statutory
provisions cited above; these requirements are already in effect and
enforceable, regardless of whether they are incorporated in the CFR.
The Agency therefore finds that notice and public comment are
unnecessary because FMCSA is not authorized to make any changes in
these requirements in response to public comments. This final rule
simply codifies an existing statutory requirement, thereby aligning the
statute and CFR.
    The requirements pertaining to public participation in rulemaking,
as set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31136(g) and 49 CFR 389.13(b), do not apply
here because this final rule is not a major rule.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ `A ``major rule'' means any rule that the Administrator of
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) finds has resulted in or is likely to
result in (a) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more; (b) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, geographic regions, or Federal, State, or
local government agencies; or (c) significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on
the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets (49 CFR
389.3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the FMCSA Administrator is delegated authority under 49
CFR 1.87(e)(1) to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49
U.S.C. chapter 313, relating to commercial motor vehicle operators.

IV. Discussion of Final Rule

    As noted above, MAP-21 amended 49 U.S.C. 31311(a) by adding the
requirement that States implement a system and practices for the
exclusively electronic exchange of driver history record information on
the system the Secretary maintains under section 31309 (i.e., CDLIS),
including the posting of convictions, withdrawals, and
disqualifications. This final rule codifies those requirements.
    In March 2020, FMCSA held an information listening session during
its regular ``Roundtable'' discussion with the American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), SDLAs, and other stakeholders
affected by the electronic exchange requirements. While all States
currently have the technical capability to transmit the DHR information
through CDLIS, some SDLAs are unable to do so when the driver
information (e.g., driver's CDL number, date of birth, or State of
record), required for CDLIS to validate and accept the electronic
record, is incorrect or missing. Under those circumstances, States must
rely on alternative methods of transmission, such as the U.S. mail.
Some States also noted the need for specific authorization by their
State legislatures to incorporate

the exclusively electronic exchange requirements into State law.
    In recognition of these issues, the final rule provides that States
should achieve substantial compliance as soon as possible, but not
later than 3 years from the effective date of this rule. This period
provides sufficient time for those SDLAs required to obtain
authorization from their State legislatures to do so. In addition,
FMCSA will work closely with AAMVA and the States to address current
systemic impediments to transmitting DHR information through CDLIS, and
to provide related regulatory guidance responding to SDLAs' questions
and concerns. The Agency acknowledges that some SDLAs believe CDLIS is
not the most efficient electronic means of transmitting driver
conviction information. As discussed above, however, FMCSA must adhere
to the statutory requirements codified by this final rule, which
specify that CDLIS be used to transmit the information.

V. Section-by-Section Analysis

    The words ``via CDLIS'' are added to the end of paragraph (a) of
Sec.  384.208. The phrase ``and must be transmitted through CDLIS'' is
added to the end of paragraph (c) of Sec.  384.209.
    This final rule also adds new paragraph (n) to Sec.  384.301,
requiring States to come into substantial compliance with the changes
made by this final rule within 3 years of its effective date.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

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

    FMCSA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866
(58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563
(76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review, and DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. OIRA determined
that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under these
orders.
    This rulemaking codifies a mandate imposed by MAP-21, as set forth
in 49 U.S.C. 31309(e)(4)(A)(ii) and 31311(a)(23). Those provisions
require, respectively, that States use CDLIS to receive and submit
driver conviction and disqualification data, and that, to avoid having
apportionments from the Highway Trust Fund under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(1)
and (b)(2) withheld, States must implement procedures for the
exclusively electronic exchange of DHR information on CDLIS, including
the posting of convictions, withdrawals, and disqualifications.
    While all States currently have the technical capability to comply
with the MAP-21 requirements by electronically transmitting DHR
information through CDLIS, some States must rely on non-electronic
means (e.g., mail) to transfer the DHR information on those occasions
when they do not have sufficient information for CDLIS to validate and
accept transmission (e.g., when there is a missing or incorrect date of
birth or incorrect CDL number). As discussed above, FMCSA will work
with AAMVA and the States to address the CDLIS constraints on
submitting electronic DHR information, which should minimize the extent
to which the initiating State is unable to complete the transmission
due to deficient information, and to streamline further the exchange of
DHR information through CDLIS. CDLIS costs may result, however, if
AAMVA determines that software updates are necessary at the State level
to accomplish this change. At this time, the existence or extent of
potential CDLIS update costs is unknown. If such costs are incurred,
States are eligible to apply for Commercial Driver License Program
Implementation grants.
    Further, FMCSA is aware that at least one State believes
exclusively electronic exchange of DHR information would result in a
cost savings. Some States currently employ people and/or pay overtime
to process paper convictions; the more efficient electronic submission
of DHR information will allow those resources to be used for other
purposes. FMCSA does not know the extent of these cost savings in any
given State, or the number of States that would experience a cost
savings.

B. Congressional Review Act

    This rule is not a major rule as defined under the Congressional
Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.)
applies to any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking under
section 553(b) of the APA and requires Federal agencies to consider the
effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small
entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. FMCSA is not
required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis, because, as
discussed earlier in the Legal Basis section, this action is not
subject to notice and comment under section 553(b) of the APA.

D. Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,\2\ FMCSA wants to assist small
entities in understanding this final rule so they can better evaluate
its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative.
If the final rule will affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance; please consult the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, (Mar. 29, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights
of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit
policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $168 million (which is the
value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to
2019 levels) or more in any one year. Though this final rule will not
result in such an expenditure, the Agency does discuss the effects of
this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains no new information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for federalism under Section 1(a) of
Executive Order 13132 if it has ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' This rule amends the CDL regulations in
49 CFR part 384 to align regulatory requirements with existing
statutory requirements on States. Because this rule makes conforming,
and not substantive, changes to requirements already imposed on States
in the CDL program, FMCSA has determined that it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the Federal and State governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore,
this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

H. Privacy Impact Assessment

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

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

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

J. National Environment Policy Act of 1969

    FMCSA analyzed this rule pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and determined this action
is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA
Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680, Mar. 1, 2004), Appendix 2, paragraphs
(6)(t)(1). The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in paragraph (6)(t)(1) covers
requirements for regulations to ensure that the States comply with the
provisions of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, by
including the minimum standards for the actions States must take to be
in substantial compliance with each of the statutory requirements of 49
U.S.C. 31311(a). The content in this rule is covered by this CE and the
final action does not have any effect on the quality of the
environment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 384

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

    Accordingly, FMCSA amends 49 CFR part 384 as follows:

PART 384--STATE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE PROGRAM

0
1. The authority citation for part 384 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31301 et seq., 31502; secs. 103 and
215, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1753, 1767; sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-
141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Amend Sec.  384.208 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  384.208  Notification of disqualification.

    (a) No later than 10 days after disqualifying a CLP or CDL holder
licensed by another State, or disqualifying an out-of-State CLP or CDL
holder's privilege to operate a commercial motor vehicle for at least
60 days, the State must notify the State that issued the license of the
disqualification via CDLIS.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  384.209 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  384.209  Notification of traffic violations.

* * * * *
    (c) Required timing of notification. Notification of traffic
violations must be made within 10 days of the conviction and must be
transmitted through CDLIS.

0
4. Amend Sec.  384.301 by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:

Sec.  384.301  Substantial compliance-general requirements.

* * * * *
    (n) A State must come into substantial compliance with the
requirements of this part in effect as of August 23, 2021, as soon as
practicable, but not later than August 22, 2024.

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Meera Joshi,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-15693 Filed 7-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: November 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 67770-67772]
[DOCID:fr30no07-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56837; File No. SR-FICC-2007-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Replace the Mortgage-Backed
Securities Division Clearing Fund Calculation Methodology With a Yield-
Driven Value-at-Risk Methodology

November 26, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on August 31, 2007, the Fixed
Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') and on September 27, 2007, amended
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which items have been prepared primarily by FICC. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    FICC is seeking to replace the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division
(``MBSD'') margin calculation methodology with a Value-at-Risk
(``VaR'') methodology.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FICC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    Clearing participants of MBSD are required to maintain
participants' fund deposits. Each participant's required deposit is
calculated daily to ensure enough funds are available to cover the
risks associated with that participant's activities.
    The purpose served by the participants fund is to have on deposit
from each participant assets sufficient to satisfy any losses that may
otherwise be incurred by MBSD participants as the result of the default
by the participant and the resultant closeout of that participant's
settlement positions.
    FICC proposes to replace the current participants fund methodology,
which uses haircuts and offsets, with a VaR model. FICC expects the VaR
model to better reflect market volatility and to more thoroughly
distinguish levels of risk presented by individual securities.
    Specifically, FICC is proposing to replace the existing MBSD margin
calculation with a yield-driven VaR model. VaR is defined to be the
maximum amount of money that may be lost on a portfolio over a given
period of time within a given level of confidence. With respect to the
MBSD, FICC is proposing a 99 percent three-day VaR.
    The changes to the components that comprise the current
participants fund calculation versus the proposed VaR calculation in
relation to the risks addressed by the components are summarized as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Proposed
      Existing methodology          Risk addressed        methodology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Margin Differential,       Adjusting contract  The sum of:
 which is the greater of:.         price to market     (i) Mark-to-
(i) the P&L Requirement or......   price and post      market and
(ii) the Market Volatility         mark-to-market      (ii) Interest
 Requirement.                      fluctuations in     rate or index-
                                   security prices.    driven model, as
                                                       appropriate.\3\

Final margin requirement          Additional          Margin Requirement
 generated for second processing   exposure due to     Differential
 cycle.\4\.                        portfolio           (``MRD'') to
                                   variation.          include intraday
                                                       portfolio
                                                       variations and
                                                       protection
                                                       regarding late
                                                       margin deficit
                                                       satisfaction.
Prefunding of certain debit cash  Uncertainty of      Prefunding of
 obligation items through the      whether a member    certain debit
 participants fund (no offset      will satisfy its    cash obligation
 for credits).                     cash settlement     items through the
                                   obligation.         participants fund
                                                       (offset for
                                                       credits).\5\
N/A.............................  Potential loss in   Coverage Component
                                   unlikely            (if necessary,
                                   situations beyond   applies
                                   the model's         additional charge
                                   effective range.    to bring coverage
                                                       to the applicable
                                                       confidence
                                                       level).
Minimum Market Margin             Maintenance of a    A minimum charge
 Differential (currently           minimum amount of   of the greater
 $250,000).                        collateral to       of: (i) $100,000
                                   support potential   or (ii) a defined
                                   counterparty        percentage of
                                   liquidation         gross portfolio.
                                   losses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FICC shall have the discretion to not apply the interest rate model
  to classes of securities whose volatility is less amenable to
  statistical analysis (e.g., the security has a lack of pricing
  history). In lieu of such a calculation, the required charge with
  respect to such positions would be determined based on an historic
  index volatility model.
\4\ The MBSD generates a preliminary margin report as part of a first
  processing cycle at the close of the business day and calculates a
  final margin requirement as part of a second processing cycle
  completed at approximately 11:30 a.m. each business day. Upon the
  implementation of the new VaR methodology, the MBSD would no longer
  generate a margin requirement as part of the second cycle. Instead, a
  final margin requirement would be established after the running of the
  first cycle at approximately 9:00 p.m.
\5\ Cash obligation item credits are retained by the MBSD and not passed
  through to the participant. As a result, the MBSD has correspondingly
  less risk vis-[agrave]-vis a firm with cash obligation credits and
  therefore requires less collateral in this regard.

    In addition, FICC may include in a participant's participant fund
calculation a ``special charge'' as determined by FICC from time to
time in view of market conditions and the financial and operational
capabilities of the participant. FICC will make any such determination
based on such factors as it determines to be appropriate.
    Because it would become obsolete upon approval of the proposed rule
change, FICC also proposes to eliminate the provision in the MBSD rules
requiring participants to maintain a Basic Deposit and Minimum Market
Margin Differential Deposit with MBSD pursuant to Article IV, Rule 1
(Participants Fund), section 1(a) and (b).
    FICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of section 17A of the Act \6\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to FICC because it should assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds in FICC's custody or control or
for which it is responsible by enabling FICC to more effectively manage
risk presented by participants' activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments have not been solicited with respect to the
proposed rule change, and none have been received. FICC will notify the
Commission of any written comments it receives.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice
in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the
Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-FICC-2007-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2007-10. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FICC and on FICC's
Web site at http://www.ficc.com/gov/gov.docs.jsp?NS-query. All comments

received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that

you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-FICC-2007-10 and should be submitted on or before
December 21, 2007.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23203 Filed 11-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 96017-96018]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31586]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-D-2495]

Submission of Warning Plans for Cigars; Guidance for Industry;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Submission of
Warning Plans for Cigars.'' The guidance will help those involved in
the manufacture, distribution, and sale of cigars in the United States
understand the new cigar warning plan requirements under FDA's final
rule deeming these products to be subject to the tobacco product
authorities in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act).
The guidance reiterates the health warning statements and display and
distribution requirements that should be provided in cigar warning
plans and will help persons determine who should submit a warning plan,
when a plan must be submitted, and what information should be included
when submitting a plan.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-D-2495 for ``Submission of Warning Plans for Cigars; Guidance
for Industry.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document
Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New

Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed
adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or
include a fax number to which the guidance document may be sent. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic
access to the guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deirdre Jurand, Center for Tobacco
Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 1-877-287-1373<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Submission of Warning Plans for Cigars.'' On June 22, 2009,
the President signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control
Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) into law. The Tobacco
Control Act granted FDA important new authority to regulate the
manufacture, marketing, and distribution of cigarettes, cigarette
tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco products to
protect the public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors.
    The Tobacco Control Act also gave FDA the authority to issue a
regulation deeming all other products that meet the statutory
definition of a tobacco product as subject to FDA regulatory authority
under section 901(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387a(b)). On May 10,
2016, FDA issued that rule, extending FDA's tobacco product authority
to cigars, among other products (81 FR 28973). Among the requirements
that now apply to cigars are health warning statements prescribed under
section 906(d) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387f(d)), which permits
restrictions on the sale and distribution of tobacco products that are
``appropriate for the protection of public health.'' The regulation
specifies the health warning statements to be displayed and also
requires the submission of warning plans that provide for the random,
equal display and random distribution of the statements on cigar
packaging and advertising.
    The guidance discusses the regulatory requirements to submit
warning plans, who submits a warning plan, the scope of a warning plan,
when to submit a warning plan, what information should be submitted in
a warning plan, where to submit a warning plan, and what approval of a
warning plan means.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on submission of warning plans for cigars. It
does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA
or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 1143 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0768.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain an electronic
version of the guidance at either https://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/default.htm.

    Dated: December 23, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-31586 Filed 12-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


MEMORANDUM

TO:	Preliminary 2008 Effluent Guidelines Plan Docket,
EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771

FROM:	Sarah Holman, ERG

DATE:	September 25, 2007

SUBJECT:	Collection of NPDES Form 2C Application Data for Steam Electric
Plants

EPA and the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) are coordinating efforts to
compile selected NPDES Form 2C data from UWAG’s member companies.  The
NPDES Form 2C is an application for a permit to discharge wastewater
that must be completed by existing industrial facilities (including
manufacturing, commercial, mining and silvicultural operations).  This
form includes facility information, data on facility outfalls, process
flow diagrams, treatment information, and intake and effluent
characteristics.  During EPA’s development of the “Data Request for
the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry,” UWAG proposed, as an
alternative to the Data Request including a requirement for plants to
collect wastewater samples, to gather current Form 2Cs from its members
and summarize relevant data contained on the forms.  While this
compilation of Form 2C data will provide less information than a
sampling requirement for a given plant, EPA believes it is a reasonable
alternative that will provide wastewater characteristics for a broader
population of plants than EPA had contemplated, encompassing a greater
variety of plant operations and characteristics and possibly resulting
in a better characterization of the waste streams of interest.  In
addition, this approach eases the burden that would have been borne by
plants responding to the Data Request.

EPA and UWAG held a conference call on September 6, 2007 to discuss the
scope of the NPDES Form 2C data collection, the timeframe of the data
collection, and the structure of the database to be used for the data
collection.  EPA and UWAG decided that the NPDES Form 2C collection will
focus on the outfalls of coal-fired facilities that receive flue gas
desulfurization (FGD), ash handling, and/or coal pile runoff waste
streams.  Other outfalls – such as separate outfalls for sanitary
sewerage, cooling water, landfill runoff, and other miscellaneous
purposes – will not be included in the database.  The database will
not include Form 2C information for plants that do not have either a wet
FGD or wet fly ash.  For example, if a plant has no wet FGD and it is
known that the only wet ash handling at the plant is for bottom ash
sluicing, its information will not be included in the database.

Attached to this memorandum are email communications between EPA and
UWAG regarding the NDPES Form 2C data collection effort.  These emails
contain materials that EPA and UWAG generated to facilitate the data
collection including a project outline and data collection instructions.

Memorandum

May 11, 2007

Page   PAGE  2