	SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST

	(in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51 - App. V)

SIP Submitted by:	Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

Date Submitted: 	November 16, 2006

Subject:		Regulation No. 1146 – Electric Generating Unit (EGU) Multi-Pollutant Regulation

Completeness Review

Completed by:	Rose Quinto

Date Completed: 	January 9, 2007

Administrative Materials

	ACCEPTABLE

	EPA REQUIREMENT

	STATE SUBMITTAL

(X)

1. A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof.

1.  Letter dated November 16, 2006 from John A. Hughes, Secretary, Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control to Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator.

 X

2. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order, consent agreement in final form.  That evidence shall include the date of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/issuance date.

2. The Order has an issuance date of November 15, 2006, effective date December 11, 2006.  The Order was signed by the Secretary on November 15, 2006.

 X

3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan.

3.  Title 7, Delaware Code, Chapter 60.

 X

4. A copy of actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, where applicable.  The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/document signed, stamped, dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State.  The effective date of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself.

4. Copy of the Delaware Regulation No. 1146 – Electric Generating Unit (EGU) Multi-Pollutant Regulation, with an effective date of December 11, 2006.

 X

5. Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.

5. Secretary(s Order #2006-A-0056 dated November 15, 2006.

 X

6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice.

6. Affidavit of publications dated August 24, 2006 from two local newspapers: The News Journal and Independent Newspapers, Inc.

 X

7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

7. Certification dated November 13, 2006 signed by the Program Administrator, Air Quality Management.  Public hearings were held on September 25, 27 and 28, 2006.

 X

8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto.

8. Hearing Officer(s Report dated November 14, 2006 on the responses to comments made on record on the proposed rule of the public hearings held on September 25, 27 and 28, 2006 and

Response Document to Public Comment dated November 9, 2006.

 X

Technical Materials

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan.

1.  The plan establishes requirements to control NOx, SO2, and mercury emissions from EGUs.

  X

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area(s).

2.  State of Delaware.

  X

3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions from the affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain ls and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision.

3.  Not applicable.  The plan established requirements to control NOx, SO2 and mercury emissions from EGUs.

  X

4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented.

4.  The plan addresses only nonattainment area pollutants for NOx, SO2 and mercury.  Therefore, PSD increments and protection (maintenance) of NAAQS are not applicable.

 X

5. Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used,  ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used, justification for use of offsite data (where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis.

5.  Not applicable.  No modeling demonstration was required to support the required revision.  No additional modeling beyond UAM attainment modeling is needed.

 X

6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology.

6.  Not applicable.  The plan established requirements to control NOx, SO2 and mercury emissions from EGUs.

X

7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission levels.

7.  Yes.  Sections 4.0 (NOx), 5.0 (SO2), 6.0 (Mercury) and 7.0 (Recordkeeping and Reporting).

X

8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice.

8   Yes.  Section 8.0 (Compliance Plan).

X

9. Special economic and technological justifications required by any applicable EPA policies. (If a policy is not appropriate, explain why.)

9.  No special justifications are required.

X

10. A Section 107 request must be accompanied by a maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance to the relevant NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation.

10.  Not applicable because this is not a section 107 request.

X


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60212-60213]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-3136]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Dispute Resolution Procedures for Science-Based
Decisions on Products Regulated by the Center for Veterinary Medicine

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on the information collection provisions of
the dispute resolution procedures for science-based decisions on
products regulated by the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM).

DATES: Either electronic or written comments on the collection of
information must be submitted by October 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of October 30, 2023. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are received on or before that date.

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): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, 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-2023-N-3136 for ``Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Dispute Resolution Procedures for
Science-Based Decisions on Products Regulated by the Center for
Veterinary Medicine.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely
manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for
those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between
9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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 Dockets Management Staff. 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: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    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 Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Sanford, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Dispute Resolution Procedures for Science-Based Decisions on Products
Regulated by the Center for Veterinary Medicine

OMB Control Number 0910-0566--Extension

    This information collection supports FDA guidance. Section 562 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-
1) directs FDA to establish adequate dispute resolution procedures to
ensure appropriate review of scientific controversies between FDA and
members of regulated industry. To implement this provision, we amended
the general appeal regulation applicable across all FDA components (21
CFR 10.75). At the same time and consistent with the mandates of
section 562 of the FD&C Act, we adopted an approach whereby specific
implementation procedures regarding scientific controversy associated
with review of certain FDA decisions are detailed in center-issued
guidance.
    The Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM)'s Guidance for Industry
(GFI) #79, ``Dispute Resolution Procedures for Science-Based Decisions
on Products Regulated by the Center for Veterinary Medicine'' (https://www.fda.gov/media/70279/download), describes the process by which CVM
formally resolves disputes relating to scientific controversies. A
scientific controversy involves issues concerning a specific product
regulated by CVM related to matters of technical expertise and requires
specialized education, training, or experience to be understood and
resolved. The guidance details information on how CVM intends to apply
provisions of existing regulations regarding internal review of Agency
decisions. In addition, the guidance outlines the established
procedures for persons who are sponsors, applicants, or manufacturers
of animal drugs or other products regulated by CVM who wish to submit a
request for review of a scientific dispute. When a sponsor, applicant,
or manufacturer has a scientific disagreement with a written decision
by CVM, they may submit a request for a review of that decision by
following the established procedures discussed in the guidance.
    CVM encourages applicants to begin the resolution of science-based
disputes with discussions with the review team/group, including the
Team Leader or Division Director. The Center prefers that differences
of opinion regarding science or science-based policy be resolved
between the review team/group and the applicant. If the matter is not
resolved by this preferred method, then CVM recommends that the
applicant follow the procedures found in GFI #79.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                              Activity                                  Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses      per  response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GFI #79, section IV; Request for review of a scientific dispute....               1                4                4               10               40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last
request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden
estimate.

    Dated: August 28, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-18830 Filed 8-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29948-29952]
[FR Doc No: E9-14849]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161; FRL-8922-6]
RIN 2060-AO80

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to
Renewable Fuel Standard Program Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing amendments to the Renewable Fuel Standard
program requirements. Following publication of the May 1, 2007, final
rule promulgating the Renewable Fuel Standard regulations, EPA
discovered a number of technical errors and areas within the
regulations that could benefit from clarification or modification. In
parallel proposed and direct final rules published on October 8, 2008,
EPA proposed to amend the regulations to make the appropriate
corrections, clarifications and modifications. However, EPA received
adverse comment on several provisions in the parallel proposed and
direct final rules and, on November 26, 2008, withdrew those provisions
from the direct final rule that drew adverse comment. In today's
action, EPA is addressing the comments received on the portions of the
direct final rule that were withdrawn and is finalizing those withdrawn
provisions with minor clarifying changes.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161, EPA West, 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>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meg McCarthy, Compliance and
Innovative Strategies Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality (6406J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (202)
343-2802; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    Entities potentially affected by this action include those involved
with the production, importation, distribution and sale of gasoline
motor fuel or renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Regulated
categories and entities affected by this action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  NAICS codes                        Examples of potentially
                   Category                           \a\        SIC codes \b\          regulated parties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................          324110            2911  Petroleum refiners, importers.
Industry......................................          325193            2869  Ethyl alcohol manufacturers.
Industry......................................          325199            2869  Other basic organic chemical
                                                                                manufacturers.
Industry......................................          424690            5169  Chemical and allied products
                                                                                merchant wholesalers.
Industry......................................          424710            5171  Petroleum bulk stations and
                                                                                terminals.
Industry......................................          424720            5172  Petroleum and petroleum products
                                                                                merchant wholesalers.
Industry......................................          454319            5989  Other fuel dealers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria of part 80, subpart K of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. If you have any question regarding
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

II. Renewable Fuel Standard Program Amendments

    EPA issued final regulations implementing the Renewable Fuel
Standard Program on May 1, 2007. EPA subsequently identified a number
of technical errors and ambiguities in the regulations and, in parallel
proposed and direct final rules published on October 2, 2008, proposed
to amend the regulations to correct these deficiencies. EPA received
adverse comment on certain of the proposed changes, so, on November 26,
2008, formally withdrew the portions of the direct final rule that were
the subject of adverse comment. Those provisions consisted of
amendments to 40 CFR 80.1129(b)(1) and 80.1129(b)(8) (providing that a
party with a small refinery or small refiner exemption may only
separate RINs that have been assigned to a volume of renewable fuel
that the party blends into motor vehicle fuel), 40 CFR 80.1129(b)(4)
(providing that any party may separate the RINs from renewable fuel
that it produces or markets for use in motor vehicles, or uses in motor
vehicles without further blending), and 40 CFR 80.1131(a)(8) and
80.1131(b)(4) (changing the location in the RFS regulations of a
provision stating that a RIN that is transferred to two or more parties
is considered an invalid RIN unless EPA in its sole discretion
determines that some portion of these RINs is valid). EPA published a
parallel proposed rule (73 FR 57274) on the same day as the direct
final rule. The proposed rule invited comment on the substance of the
direct final rule and indicated that a second comment period would not
be offered on the proposal in the event that portions of the direct
final rule were withdrawn in response to adverse comment. In this
action, we are responding to the comments received on the portions of
the direct final rule that were withdrawn, and we are finalizing the
proposed technical corrections with minor clarifying changes.

A. Separating RINs: Parties With Small Refiner or Small Refinery
Exemption

    EPA proposed the addition of 40 CFR 80.1129(b)(8) and a conforming
change to 80.1129(b)(1) to clarify that a party with a small refinery
or small refiner exemption may only separate Renewable Identification
Numbers (RINs) that have been assigned to a volume of renewable fuel
that the party blends into motor vehicle fuel.
    In response to this proposed amendment, EPA received a comment
which stated that the proposed 80.1129(b)(8) would result in the
provision being overly broad. The comment further articulated a concern
that EPA has mistakenly concluded that all refiners who have received
either a small refiner exemption under 40 CFR 80.1142 or a small
refinery exemption under 40 CFR 80.1141 are not obligated parties under
the RFS program, and therefore, that those refiners may only separate
RINs that have been assigned to volumes of renewable fuel that the
refiner blends into motor vehicle fuel. Refiners who have received the
small refinery exemption either are not obligated parties because they
do not operate other non-exempt refineries or they are obligated
parties because they do operate other non-exempt refineries. The
commenter argued that the proposed technical amendment to add 40 CFR
80.1129(b)(8), as written, applies to both groups, but that it should
apply only to the former group of refiners and not the latter.
    EPA agrees with the comment and has added a clause to the final
amendment to 40 80.1129(b)(8) to clarify our intention. Thus, the final
rule states that it applies only to parties that have received a small
refinery or small refiner exemption and who are ``not otherwise
obligated parties.''

B. Separating RINs for Renewable Fuel Designated for Use as Motor
Vehicle Fuel and Used as Motor Vehicle Fuel

    EPA proposed changes to 40 CFR 80.1129(b)(4) in order to clarify
that any party, not just renewable fuel producers or importers, may
separate the RINs from renewable fuel when it designates that fuel for
use in motor vehicles and the renewable fuel is used in motor vehicles
in that designated form.
    EPA received a comment on 80.1129(b)(4) which stated that that
regulation should clarify that EPA intends the provision to apply to
motor vehicle fuel used in its neat form, deposited directly into a
motor vehicle fuel supply tank as motor vehicle fuel. In response, EPA
confirms that the provision was originally meant to apply to neat
renewable fuel that is designated for use as motor vehicle fuel, and is
used as motor vehicle fuel in its designated form. In other words, the
provision applies to neat renewable fuel that is directly used as motor
vehicle fuel and is not blended any further. For purposes of the RFS
program, ``neat renewable fuel'' is defined in 80.1101(p) as ``a
renewable fuel to which only de minimis amounts of conventional
gasoline or diesel have been added.'' Under the RFS program, denatured
ethanol is considered neat renewable fuel, as is denatured ethanol with
only an additional de minimis quantity of gasoline added. In the case
of biodiesel, a biodiesel producer would be authorized under
80.1129(b)(4) to separate RINs for B100 or B99 that it designates as
motor vehicle fuel, providing that the fuel is in fact used that way.

    In contrast, any party that blends ethanol with more than a de
minimis additional amount of gasoline beyond what is used for
denaturing, or blends biodiesel with 20 volume percent or more of
conventional diesel must separate any RINs assigned to that volume of
renewable fuel, as required under 80.1129(b)(2). Biodiesel blends in
which conventional diesel constitutes less than 20 volume percent and
more than one percent are ineligible for RIN separation under any
circumstances, as specified in 80.1129(b)(2) and (b)(5). As noted in
the preamble to the final RFS regulations, it is EPA's understanding
that in the vast majority of cases, biodiesel is blended with diesel in
biodiesel concentrations of 80 volume percent or less. Therefore, EPA
did not anticipate that this restriction would operate to significantly
restrict biodiesel blending for fuel production, while it would afford
some measure of protection against the possibility that renewable fuel
producers could hold back RINs from obligated parties for the purpose
of driving up their price. However, we may revisit this issue in a
future RFS rulemaking since circumstances may change such that
biodiesel blends of 81 percent or greater begin to be used more
commonly as motor vehicle fuel.
    In the proposed technical amendments, EPA proposed to expand the
parties eligible to separate RINS for neat renewable fuel to include
any party that produces, imports, owns, sells or uses such fuel. EPA is
finalizing the proposed change to 80.1129(b)(4) and, in response to
comment, is clarifying that this section applies only to neat renewable
fuel.
    In addition, EPA is making conforming amendments to 80.1151(b)(5)
and 80.11129(b)5)(ii) to reflect the expanded applicability of
80.1129(b)(4).

C. Duplicate RINs

    EPA proposed changes to 40 CFR 80.1131(a)(8) and 80.1131(b)(4),
which consisted of changing the location in the RFS regulations of a
provision stating that a RIN that is transferred to two or more parties
is considered an invalid RIN unless EPA in its sole discretion
determines that some portion of these RINs is valid.
    EPA received a comment which stated that EPA should not invalidate
all duplicate RINs, but, rather, the party transferring duplicate RINs
should be required to take appropriate actions such as notifying all
parties who have received the duplicate RINs, determine which RINs are
valid and which are invalid, and transfer replacement RINs to those
parties that received invalid RINs.
    In response, EPA believes that if duplicate RINs are not made
automatically invalid, problems associated with the duplicate RINs may
be compounded downstream from the original duplication. For example,
additional downstream transfers of duplicate RINs could occur if
transferees are confused about which RINs are valid and which are not.
EPA believes this type of confusion is minimized by automatically
invalidating all RINs for which duplicates have been identified, and
giving EPA sole discretion to determine if any of the duplicate RINs
are valid. Since EPA received no comment on its proposed relocation of
this provision within the RFS program regulations, EPA is finalizing
the technical amendments to 40 CFR 80.1131(a)(8) and 80.1131(b)(4) as
proposed.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review. This final rule simply makes minor
technical changes to the RFS regulations and modifies certain
requirements to make them less burdensome for regulated parties.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
This action makes minor technical corrections to the regulations and
modifies certain requirements to lessen the burden on related parties
while maintaining the overall goals of the program. None of the changes
in the rule require any additional information collection burdens. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations 40 CFR part 80, subpart K, under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0600. 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 (RFA) 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 rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (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; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    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. This action

makes minor technical corrections to the regulations and modifies
certain requirements to lessen the burden on regulated parties. Thus,
after considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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 makes minor technical corrections to the RFS regulations
and modifies certain provisions to lessen the requirements for
regulated parties. As a result, this rule will have the overall effect
of reducing the burden of the RFS regulations on regulated parties.
Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or
205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. It only applies to
gasoline and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors and
marketers and makes minor corrections and modifications to the RFS
regulations.

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 final 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. This action makes minor
technical corrections and certain modifications that lessen the burden
on related parties. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule.

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

    This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It applies to
gasoline and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors and
marketers. This action makes minor corrections and modifications to the
RFS regulations, and does not impose any enforceable duties on
communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 18355 (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 of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 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 final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. These technical amendments do not relax the control
measures on sources regulated by the RFS regulations and therefore will
not cause emissions increases from these sources.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, Motor
vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 18, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
40 CFR Part 80 is amended as follows:

PART 80-REGULATION OF FUEL AND FUEL ADDITIVES

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

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

0
2. Section 80.1129 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (b)(1).
0
b. By revising paragraph (b)(4).
0
c. By revising paragraph (b)(5)(ii).
0
d. By adding paragraph (b)(8).

Sec.  80.1129   Requirements for separating RINs from volumes of
renewable fuel.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(8) of this
section, a party that is an obligated party according to Sec.  80.1106
must separate any RINs that have been assigned to a volume of renewable
fuel if they own that volume.
* * * * *
    (4) Any party that produces, imports, owns, sells or uses a volume
of neat renewable fuel may separate any RINs that have been assigned to
that volume of neat renewable fuel if the party designates the neat
renewable fuel as motor vehicle fuel, and the neat renewable fuel is
used as a motor vehicle fuel.
    (5) * * *
    (ii) This paragraph (b)(5) shall not apply to any party meeting the
requirements of paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (8) For a party that has received a small refinery exemption under
Sec.  80.1141 or a small refiner exemption under Sec.  80.1142, and who
is not otherwise an obligated party, during the period of time that the
small refinery or small refiner exemption is in effect the party may
only separate RINs that have been assigned to volumes of renewable fuel
that the party blends into motor vehicle fuel in accordance with
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    3. Section 80.1131 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(8) and
removing paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  80.1131   Treatment of invalid RINs.

    (a) * * *
    (8) In the event that the same RIN is transferred to two or more
parties, all such RINs will be deemed to be invalid, unless EPA in its
sole discretion determines that some portion of these RINs is valid.
* * * * *
    4. Section 80.1151 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(5) to read
as follows:

Sec.  80.1151   What are the recordkeeping requirements under the RFS
program?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Records related to the production, importation, ownership, sale
or use of any volume of neat renewable fuel that any party designates
as motor vehicle fuel and uses as motor vehicle fuel.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-14849 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5903-5905]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-7485; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-25]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Minot, ND

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the legal description of the Class E
surface area airspace and Class E airspace designated as an extension
at Minot International Airport, Minot, ND, eliminating the Notice to
Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status, and brings current the geographic
coordinates of Minot International Airport to coincide with the FAA's
database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Minot International Airport, Minot,
ND.

History

    In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the airspace for Minot
International Airport, Minot, ND as published in FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not require part time
status. This is an administrative change removing the part time NOTAM
information from the legal description for the airport, and also amends
the geographic coordinates of the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and
6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by eliminating the NOTAM information that reads, ``This Class E
airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established
in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility
Directory.'' From the regulatory text of Class E surface area airspace
and Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D, at Minot
International Airport, Minot, ND. Additionally, the geographic
coordinates of the airport are being updated to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.
    This is an administrative change amending the description for Minot
International Airport to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical
database, and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements
of the airspace; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) are unnecessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015,
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AGL ND E2 Minot, ND (Amended)

Minot International Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]15'28'' N., long. 101[deg]16'41'' W.)
Minot VORTAC
    (Lat. 48[deg]15'37'' N., long. 101[deg]17'13'' W.)

    Within a 4.2-mile radius of Minot International Airport and
within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot VORTAC 129[deg] radial,
extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles
southeast of the VORTAC, and within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot
VORTAC 260[deg] radial, extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the
airport to 7 miles west of the VORTAC, and within 3.5 miles each
side of the Minot VORTAC 327[deg] radial, extending from the 4.2-
mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northwest of the VORTAC, and
within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot VORTAC 097[deg] radial,
extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 7 miles east of the VORTAC,
excluding the portion which overlies the Minot AFB, ND, Class D
airspace area.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

AGL ND E4 Minot, ND (Amended)

Minot International Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]15'28'' N., long. 101[deg]16'41'' W.)

Minot VORTAC
    (Lat. 48[deg]15'37'' N., long. 101[deg]17'13'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.5 miles
each side of the Minot VORTAC 129[deg] radial extending from the
4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles southeast of the VORTAC,
and within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot VORTAC 260[deg] radial,
extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles west of
the VORTAC, and within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot VORTAC
327[deg] radial, extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport
to 7 miles

northwest of the VORTAC, and within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot
VORTAC 097[deg] radial, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 7
miles east of the VORTAC, excluding the portion which overlies the
Minot AFB, ND, Class D airspace area.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 27, 2016.
Robert W. Beck,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-02036 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78762-78764]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27848]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0082]

Entry-Level Driver Training: Western Area Career and Technology
Center; Application for Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny the exemption application
from Western Area Career and Technology Center (WACTC). WACTC requested
an exemption from the theory and behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructor
requirements contained in the entry-level driver training (ELDT)
regulations for one prospective instructor. FMCSA analyzed the
exemption application and public comments and determined that the
application lacked evidence that would ensure a level of safety
equivalent to or

greater than would be achieved absent such exemption.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards, FMCSA;<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected]. If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket
number (``FMCSA-2022-0082'') in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose
the first notice listed, and click ``View Related Comments.''
    To view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in
the docket, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket number
(``FMCSA-2022-0082'') in the ``Keyword'' box, click ``Search,'' and
chose the document to review.
    If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket
by visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202)
366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets Operations.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305(a)). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Background

Current Regulatory Requirements

    The ELDT regulations, implemented on February 7, 2022, established
minimum training standards for individuals applying for certain
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) and defined curriculum standards
for theory and BTW training. It also established an online training
provider registry (TPR), eligibility requirements for providers to be
listed on the TPR, and qualification requirements for instructors.
Under 49 CFR 380.713, a training provider must use instructors who meet
the definitions of ``theory instructor'' and ``BTW instructor'' in 49
CFR 380.605. The definitions of ``theory instructor'' and ``BTW
instructor'' in 49 CFR 380.605 require that instructors hold a CDL of
the same (or higher) class, with all endorsements necessary to operate
the commercial motor vehicle (CMV) for which training is to be
provided, and have either: (1) a minimum of two years of experience
driving a CMV requiring a CDL of the same or higher class and/or the
same endorsement; or (2) at least two years of experience as a BTW CMV
instructor.

Applicant's Request

    WACTC requests an exemption from 49 CFR 380.713, which requires a
training provider to use instructors who meet the definitions of
``theory instructor'' and ``BTW instructor'' in 49 CFR 380.605. WACTC
specifies that it would like to use one driver training instructor,
Drew Ley, who does not have two years of required driving experience
with a Class A CDL. WACTC states that it has been difficult to find
qualified instructors. WACTC stated that Mr. Ley would meet the ELDT
regulation's requirement for two years of driving experience with a
Class A CDL in August 2022.
    WACTC states that it conducts monthly classes in which students
achieve 160 hours of practical training, with four students per class.
The ratio of instructor to students ``provides a more individualized
training approach as well as the ability to address individual student
needs and/or concerns as they may arise.'' According to WACTC, the
impact of this exemption being denied would be devastating not only to
its CDL program, but to the Adult Education Department as a whole.
WACTC asserts that its CDL program is the most popular and successful
program offered and helps stabilize other struggling programs through a
steady stream of revenue.

IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    WACTC believes that Mr. Ley makes up for his failure to have two
years of required driving experience through his experience with the
FMCSA regulations and his other qualifications. According to WACTC,
prior to FMCSA's implementation of the ELDT regulations, Mr. Ley
successfully trained four of its classes and achieved a 100% student
completion rate. When he was an employee of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT), Mr. Ley previously audited and verified
third-party testing sites, routes, and CDL examiners to assure
compliance with PennDOT regulations. He also assisted in the training
and bi-annual reviews of experienced and new CDL examiners and has
experience operating Class B vehicles with school bus and passenger
endorsements. In addition, Mr. Ley has obtained a School Bus Instructor
Certification, Certified Inspection Mechanic (class 7), certification
as a licensed private Class C instructor, and has had a Class A CDL for
a year and a half without restrictions. A copy of WACTC's application
for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.

V. Public Comments

    On June 15, 2022, FMCSA published notice of WACTC's application for
exemption and requested public comment [87 FR 36202]. Six comments were
filed in response to the exemption request, five from individual
commenters and one from the Owner-Operator Independent Driver's
Association (OOIDA). Four commenters, including OOIDA, opposed the
exemption request, while two others offered no opinion either for or
against the exemption request.
    OOIDA cited its participation as a primary industry stakeholder on
the Entry-Level Driver Training Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
(ELDTAC) when the ``framework'' of the ELDT rule was agreed upon by the
Committee. OOIDA supported the provision in the ELDT rule that required
driving experience for training instructors because OOIDA believes that
experience is essential to provide comprehensive training to entry-
level drivers. OOIDA believes there is no substitute for an experienced
BTW trainer. According to OOIDA,

exempting instructors without driving experience will not result in an
equivalent or greater level of safety. OOIDA further added that the
delayed implementation date of the ELDT regulations from 2020 to 2022
allowed even more time for training providers to obtain the requisite
experience.
    Other individual commenters who filed in opposition also cited Mr.
Ley's lack of experience. A commenter stated that ``CDL drivers with
less than two years of experience are a hazard to new drivers as they
lack the experience to understand safe operation of a tractor
trailer.'' Another commenter added that in their opinion, ``it takes
much more than one year of `real' driving experience, not just holding
a CDL to gain any experience that is worthy of passing along.''

VI. FMCSA Safety Analysis and Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated WACTC's application and the public comments.
When the Agency established the ELDT regulations, it determined that
two years of experience driving a CMV is the minimum qualification
standard, reflecting the opinion of numerous commenters to the ELDT
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Furthermore, WACTC indicated in its
application that the exemption, if granted, would only be necessary
until August 2022, when Mr. Ley will have had his Class A CDL for the
required two years.
    The Agency concurs with commenters that if it allows an individual
instructor to provide ELDT without the required driving experience, it
could open the door for similar exemption requests on a widespread
basis. Such a result would be inconsistent with a primary goal of the
ELDT regulations, which was to improve highway safety by establishing a
uniform Federal minimum ELDT standard.
    FMCSA concludes that WACTC has presented insufficient evidence to
establish that not complying with the provisions of the ELDT
regulations relating to driving experience requirements for CMV
instructors would meet or exceed the level of safety provided by
complying with the ELDT regulations. In addition, based on the
information provided by WACTC that Mr. Ley would meet the requirement
for two years of driving experience with a Class A CDL in August 2022,
the request is now moot.
    For the above reasons, WACTC's exemption application is denied.

Robin Hutcheson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-27848 Filed 12-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee ( NPPTAC) Federal Technical Advisors John Bucher Deputy Director Environmental Toxicology Program National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences Kimberly Copperthite International Trade Specialist for Plastic Resins and Products U. S. Department Of Commerce Christopher De Rosa Director Division of Toxicology Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Jackie Elder Assistant Executive Director Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Alternate to Jackie Elder: Mary Ann Danello Associate Executive Director for Health Sciences U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Henry Falk Director National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Alternate to Henry Falk: John Osterloh Chief Medical Officer Division of Laboratory Sciences National Center for Environmental Health Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Robert Ford Director Office of Environmental Policy U. S. Department of State Alternate to Robert Ford: John Thompson Office of Environmental Policy U. S. Department of State John Howard Director National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Alternate to John Howard: Matt Gillen Senior Scientist National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Centers for Disease Control and Prevention John Howard, Jr. Federal Environmental Executive U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Alternate to John Howard, Jr.: Dana Arnold Chief of Staff Office of the Federal Environmental Executive U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 10/ 30/ 2003 1 National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee ( NPPTAC) Federal Technical Advisors 10/ 30/ 2003 2 Alternate to John Howard, Jr.: Ed Pinero Deputy Federal Environmental Executive Office of the Federal Environmental Executive U. S. Environmental Protection Agency David Jacobs Director Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Paul Lynch Assistant Commissioner Office of Business Operations U. S. General Services Administration Timothy Miller Chief National Water Quality Assessment Program U. S. Geological Survey Jennifer Prescott Director for Multilateral Trade and Environment Policy Office of the U. S. Trade Representative Maureen Sullivan Acting Director of Compliance Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense ( Installations & Environment) U. S. Department of Defense Terry Troxell Director of Plants and Dairyfoods and Beverages Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition U. S. Food & Drug Administration Everett Wilson Chief Division of Environmental Quality U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Steven Witt Director Directorate of Standards and Guidance Occupational Safety and Health Administration U. S. Department of Labor Alternates to Steven Witt: Bill Perry Directorate of Standards and Guidance Occupational Safety and Health Administration U. S. Department of Labor Lyn Penniman Directorate of Standards and Guidance Occupational Safety and Health Administration U. S. Department of Labor


1The 205 existing facilities include 172 MODUs, 8 deepwater and 8 shallow water Gulf platforms or structures, 7 California platforms, and 10 Alaska platforms.

2The annualized pre permitting study costs for Region 10 are $ 1,385, while repermitting study costs are $ 2,505. These costs were annualized over 30 years ( DCN 7 4018).

1 MEMORANDUM Date: October 15, 2004 To: 316b Rulemaking Record From: Anne Jones and Ian Cadillac, ERG, Inc. Subject: Costs for Existing Oil and Gas Facilities Had These Been Regulated Under 316( b) Phase III.

EPA examined the impacts of the proposed rule assuming these requirements were applied to all existing oil and gas facilities. Totals in this memo are based on costs developed by EPA for an estimated 205 existing MODUs and platforms. Engineering costs ( capital and O& M) are as presented in the Technical Development Document for the proposal ( U. S. EPA, 2004a), permitting and monitoring costs are as presented in the 316( b) Compliance Cost Model ( DCN 7 4018), while weights for existing MODUs and platforms are described in more detail in ERG ( 2004a). This source also discusses how the estimate of 205 existing facilities that meet proposed 316( b) criteria is developed. 1 Costs are annualized using the Office and Management and Budget's recommended 7 percent discount rate. This rate is real and does not need to be adjusted for inflation.

Please note that costs for bringing existing oil and gas facilities into compliance is an incremental cost. That is, the costs EPA has calculated for new facilities in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska already includes costs assumed to be shared among all facilities in a region as well as costs to individual facilities. If EPA were to promulgate regulations that included both new and existing facilities, the total costs described in this memo would be an accurate estimate of the cost of such a regulation when added to the cost to new facilities, but the costs incurred by new facilities would decrease slightly and costs for existing facilities would increase slightly above those shown here, since existing and new facilities would be expected to share pre permitting study costs. See ERG ( 2004b) for a discussion of individual facility costs versus shared pre permitting and monitoring costs.

Most of the costs to existing facilities are thus calculated using costs to individual facilities. However, in some cases, additional regional, shared pre permitting costs will be incurred. In Alaska, only the cost for one pre permitting study was assumed. This same study is assumed to be conducted had existing facilities been regulated, but the cost to prepare a regional report ( see EPA's 316( b) Oil and Gas Compliance Cost Model, DCN 7 4018) is not a part of the costs shown in the Economic Analysis report ( U. S. EPA, 2004b). 2 Additionally, no new platforms were assumed to be constructed in California ( U. S. EPA, 2004b). Thus, existing facilities in California would need to share the costs of a regional prepermitting study and monitoring program. 3The annualized costs for Region 9 include $ 17,485 for monitoring, $ 68,306 for pre permitting studies, and $ 116,837 for repermitting studies.

2 Section 1 discusses the method for calculating and aggregating individual costs to existing facilities. Section 2 discusses the method for calculating the shared costs for California, and Section 3 presents the total costs for individual facilities, the additional Alaska shared costs and the additional California shared costs. All calculations and results can be seen in the Compliance Cost Model ( DCN 7 4018) and another spreadsheet in the Rulemaking Record ( DCN 7 4030)

1. CALCULATION OF INDIVIDUAL FACILITY TOTALS The total individual facility costs of compliance with the rule contain several components: capital, permitting, repermitting and O& M costs. These costs are incurred at different time intervals over the life of a facility. The bullet points below detail the different time frames over which the different costs were annualized.

# Capital Costs are annualized over 10 years, which is considered the useful life of the equipment.

# Permitting Costs are calculated by summing all facility specific costs, then annualizing this total over 30 years, the life of the initial permit. For more information on facility specific versus shared costs, see ERG ( 2004b).

# Repermitting Costs are the annualized sum of all facility specific repermitting costs annualized over 5 years, the time interval for repermitting.

# O& M Costs are annual costs and are not discounted.

To calculate the annualized compliance costs by facility, the annualized capital, permitting, and repermitting costs are summed, and the O& M costs, which are incurred annually, are added. The facility totals are then weighted, and totaled by facility type.

2. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL COSTS FOR CALIFORNIA Since we project no additional facilities to be constructed off of California, the cost totals for new facilities do not include permitting costs for California ( Region 9). If EPA decided to regulate existing facilities then all facilities operating in Region 9 would need to incur extra costs associated with prepermitting studies and monitoring. 3 These study and monitoring costs are assumed to be shared, and for simplicity are assumed to all be incurred in 2007. ERG assumes that the costs of the regional shared prepermitting and monitoring studies would be the same as those incurred by Region 6 facilities and has used those costs as calculated in the Compliance Cost Model, spreadsheet labeled " Facility Cost  Proposed Rule" ( DCN 7 4018). For more information on the individual cost items that comprise monitoring and prepermitting study costs see also ERG ( 2004b). These costs are annualized over 30 years. 3 3. RESULTS Overall total costs for the estimated 205 existing facilities are presented below in Table 1. As the table shows, the incremental, pre tax, annualized cost of bringing the estimated 205 existing platforms and MODUs into compliance with the proposed rule is $ 8.0 million per year. Compliance costs for existing MODUs are $ 3.6 million and compliance costs for existing platforms are $ 4.5 million ( including additional costs for Region 9 and . Region 10 platforms).

Table 1 Total Annualized Cost for Existing Facilities Cost Type Total Annualized Cost MODUs $ 3,565,657 Platforms $ 4,244,890 Region 9 $ 202,628 Region 10 $ 3,890 Total $ 8,017,065 Source: ERG estimates based on U. S. EPA, 2004a, DCN 7 4018, and ERG, 2004a. See DCN 7 4030 for these calculations.

3. REFERENCES U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( U. S. EPA). 2004a. Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase III Rule.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( U. S. EPA). 2004b. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Phase III Facilities.

ERG. 2004a. Calculation of Weights for Engineering Cost Estimates. Memorandum to the 316( b) Phase III Rulemaking Record. September 24, 2004.

ERG. 2004b. Cost Timing and Cost Sharing Assumptions for Industry Compliance Costs. Memorandum to the 316( b) Phase III Rulemaking Record. October 15, 2004.