[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 197 (Friday, October 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64218-64220]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22401]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0069]

Commercial Driver's Licenses; Expansion of Military Occupational
Specialties in the Pilot Program To Allow Persons 18, 19, and 20 Years
Old With Military Driving Experience To Operate Commercial Motor
Vehicles in Interstate Commerce

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

ACTION: Notice of pilot program; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: As required by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act, FMCSA implemented a pilot program to allow individuals aged
18, 19 and 20 to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce if they have received heavy-vehicle driver training in certain
Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) while in military service.
FMCSA proposes to expand the MOS eligible to participate in this pilot
program to provide additional service members with the opportunity to
transition to commercial driving jobs.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 9, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2016-0069 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Selden Fritschner, CDL Division,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials. In this notice, FMCSA requests certain information,
but comments are not limited to responses to those requests.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2016-0069), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online, by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov, put the
docket number, ``FMCSA-2016-0069'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box in the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by
mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the

facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as
being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, ``FMCSA-2016-0069'' in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Docket Operations.

II. Legal Basis

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA is authorized to grant
waivers and exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) and to conduct pilot programs. A waiver is limited
to a period of 3 months and may be granted without requesting public
comment (49 U.S.C. 31315(a)). By contrast, an exemption may remain in
effect for up to 5 years \1\ and may be renewed. The Secretary must
provide the public with an opportunity to comment on each exemption
request prior to granting or denying it (49 U.S.C. 31315(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 5206 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act amended 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(2) to extend the maximum
duration of an exemption from 2 years to 5 years, effective October
1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pilot programs under 49 U.S.C. 31315(c) may include one or more
exemptions to allow for the testing of innovative alternatives to
certain FMCSRs. FMCSA must publish in the Federal Register a detailed
description of each pilot program, including the exemptions being
considered, and provide notice and an opportunity for public comment
before the effective date of the program. The Agency is required to
ensure that the safety measures in the pilot programs are designed to
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety that would be achieved through compliance with the
safety regulations. The maximum duration of pilot programs is 3 years
from the starting date.
    At the conclusion of each pilot program, FMCSA must report to
Congress its findings, conclusions, and recommendations, including
suggested amendments to laws and regulations that would enhance motor
carrier, CMV, and driver safety, and improve compliance with the
FMCSRs.
    Section 5404 of the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1549,
Dec. 4, 2015) requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a
commercial driver pilot program to ``. . . study the feasibility,
benefits, and safety impacts of allowing a covered driver to operate a
commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce.'' A ``covered driver''
is currently defined as a member or former member of the armed forces
or reserve and National Guard components between the ages of 18 and 21,
who is qualified in an MOS to operate a CMV or similar vehicle. A
driver participating in the program may not transport passengers or
hazardous cargo, or operate a vehicle in a ``special configuration.''
    Section 5404 requires the pilot program to collect and analyze data
regarding crashes involving covered drivers participating in the
program, and drivers under the age of 21 operating CMVs in intrastate
commerce.
    Section 5404 also requires the Secretary to ``. . . conduct,
monitor, and evaluate . . .'' the pilot program in consultation with a
working group consisting of representatives of the armed forces,
industry, drivers, safety advocacy organizations, and State licensing
and enforcement officials. The working group must review the data
collected and make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the
feasibility, benefits, and safety impacts of allowing a covered driver
to operate in interstate commerce. (See Section V of this notice.)

III. Background

    On August 22, 2016, FMCSA published a notice that described the
proposed pilot program required by the FAST Act and solicited public
comment (81 FR 56745). On July 6, 2018, the Agency published a further
notice responding to the comments received and outlining the details of
the pilot program (83 FR 31633). Please refer to those two documents
for a comprehensive discussion of the pilot program and the 7 MOS that
currently qualify for the pilot program.

IV. Armed Forces Heavy-Vehicle Driver Training Programs

    Four branches of the Department of Defense--the Army, Air Force,
Navy, and Marine Corps--include an MOS specifically focused on motor
transport operations and consequently provide specific training to
their personnel on how to operate heavy-duty vehicles. Additionally,
there are three MOS classifications with additional training required
for other types of heavy-duty specialty vehicles (e.g., gasoline
haulers, construction vehicles, and military equipment transport
oversize/overweight [non-track] vehicles).
    As such, the seven original Military Occupational Specialties
approved for the Pilot program in the July 6, 2018, Federal Register
notice are as follows:
 Army
    [cir] 88M Motor Transport Operator
    [cir] 92F Fueler
 Marine Corps
    [cir] 3531 Motor Vehicle Operator
 Navy
    [cir] E.O. Equipment Operator
 Air Force
    [cir] 2TI Vehicle Operator
    [cir] 2FO Fueler
    [cir] 3E2 Pavement and Construction Equipment Operator

    FMCSA is proposing to expand the list of eligible MOS to include
additional MOS classifications for which heavy-duty vehicle operation
is a core duty and for which heavy-vehicle training is a requirement.
Those additional MOS are as follows:
 Army
    [cir] 12B Combat Engineer
    [cir] 13B Field Artillery
    [cir] 13P MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System)
    [cir] 88H Transportation Cargo
    [cir] 14T Patriot Launching Station Operator
 Marine Corps
    [cir] 3537 After 3531 achieves the rank of SSgt
    [cir] 0811 Field Artillery Cannoneer
    [cir] 1371 Combat Engineer
    [cir] 1345 Engineer Equipment Operator

    Each of these proposed additions requires drivers to complete
classroom and road (skills) training prior to receiving the MOS
designation, as well as ongoing training and routine recertification on
heavy vehicle operations. Military personnel in these MOS receive
continuous training during their service period to maintain
proficiency. Additionally, retesting is conducted annually, at a
minimum.
    The core training agenda for each of these MOS includes:

 Classroom Training and Preparedness:
    [cir] Ensuring the driver is in possession of a valid State
driver's license;
    [cir] Confirming the physical qualifications for a large truck
driver;
    [cir] Providing training equivalent to the

civilian commercial learner's permit (CLP);
    [cir] Training directed at the driver responsibilities and
Government liability;
    [cir] Awareness of State, local, host nation, and post traffic
regulations and laws;
    [cir] Equipment inspection and maintenance;
    [cir] Accident reporting procedures;
    [cir] Vehicle inspection; preventive maintenance checks and
services;
    [cir] Crash avoidance;
    [cir] Environmental considerations;
    [cir] Night driving;
    [cir] Response to emergency situations; vehicle malfunctions; and
    [cir] Route planning.
 Road Training:
    [cir] Vehicle characteristics;
    [cir] Parking and backing;
    [cir] Operating systems;
    [cir] Basic control tasks;
    [cir] Road conditions;
    [cir] Size and weight;
    [cir] Negotiating traffic;
    [cir] Yielding right of way;
    [cir] Intersections;
    [cir] Turns;
    [cir] Following distance;
    [cir] Negotiating curves;
    [cir] Adverse weather;
    [cir] Skids; and
    [cir] Speed.

    To obtain an MOS credential, both for the MOS currently eligible
for the Agency's pilot program, and for the additional MOS proposed in
this notice, each driver must pass the driver skills test, which
includes the following components:

 Forward stop;
 Straight line backing;
 Alley dock parking;
 Eight left and eight right turns;
 A straight section of urban business streets;
 Two through intersections;
 Two railway crossings;
 Two curves, one to the left and one to the right;
 A two-lane rural or semi-rural road;
 Expressway driving, including lane changes and higher speeds;
and
 Gear shifting for:
    [cir] Downgrade;
    [cir] upgrade;
    [cir] downgrade for stopping;
    [cir] upgrade for stopping;
    [cir] underpass or low clearance, and
    [cir] one bridge.

    The training requirements for the nine new proposed MOS are
equivalent to those required for the original seven MOS approved for
the pilot program. As such, FMCSA believes that the safety of the pilot
program will not be adversely affected by inclusion of these additional
MOS in the program. These additional MOS are being included at the
recommendation of the Army and Marine Corps to provide additional
service members with the opportunity to transition to commercial
driving jobs. These additional MOS were not included previously because
FMCSA was not aware that these classifications received heavy-vehicle
training and recurrent training equivalent to the training the original
MOS receive. By increasing the MOS, FMCSA anticipates there will be an
additional 30,000 drivers between the ages of 18 and 21 who are
eligible to participate in the Under 21 Military CDL Pilot Program.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520)
prohibits agencies from conducting information collection (IC)
activities until they analyze the need for the collection of
information and how the collected data would be managed. Agencies must
also analyze whether technology could be used to reduce the burden
imposed on those providing the data. The Agency must estimate the time
burden required to respond to the IC requirements, such as the time
required to complete a particular form. The Agency submitted its IC
analysis and burden estimate to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) as a formal information collection request (ICR) for this pilot
program and received approval on April 23, 2019. The ICR expires on
April 30, 2022, and can be found under OMB Control Number 2126-0068.

VI. Removal From the Program

    FMCSA reserves the right to remove any motor carrier or driver from
the pilot program for reasons including, but not limited to, failing to
meet any of the requirements of the program.

VII. Request for Public Comments

    FMCSA requests comments on the need for, and the advisability of,
including the additional MOS listed above in the pilot program. Because
the questions asked in the 2016 Federal Register notice were addressed
in the 2018 notice, we are not seeking responses on those issues.

James W. Deck,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-22401 Filed 10-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 214-217]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33660]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0547; FRL-9480-1]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were
proposed in the Federal Register on July 11, 2011 and concern volatile
organic compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and
particulate matter (PM) emissions from open burning. We are approving a
local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on February 3, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0547 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4118<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On July 11, 2011 (76 FR 132), EPA proposed to approve the following
rules into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Local agency                  Rule No.              Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD................................         4103  Open Burning...................     04/15/10     04/05/11
SJVUAPCD................................  ...........  Table 9-1, Final Staff Report       05/20/10     04/05/11
                                                        and Recommendations on
                                                        Agricultural Burning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comments from the following party.
    1. Sarah Jackson, Earthjustice; letter and email dated and received
August 10, 2011.
    The comments and our responses are summarized below.
    Comment #1: Earthjustice commented on the meaning of reasonably
available control measures (RACM) under section 172(c)(1) of the CAA,
noting that ``EPA has interpreted `reasonably available' to be a
measure that is `technologically and economically feasible and can be
readily implemented.' '' Earthjustice further asserted that ``economic
feasibility considers more than simply affordability and the cost-
benefit ratio'' and that ``Congress intended RACM to be applied as
those measures became available.''
    Response #1: We agree that RACM under section 172(c)(1)
incorporates considerations of technical and economic feasibility. We
note, however, that, ``Congress provided EPA and States a great deal of
deference for determining what measures to include in an attainment
plan'' under CAA section 172(c)(1) and that ``[b]y including language
in Section 172(c)(1) that only `reasonably available' measures be
considered for RACT/RACM, and that implementation of these measures
need be applied only `as expeditiously as practicable,' Congress
clearly intended that the RACT/RACM requirement be driven by an overall
requirement that the measure be `reasonable.' '' 72 FR 20610 (April 25,
2007).
    Comment #2: Earthjustice asserted that, ``[t]he District's RACM
determination is flawed because it applies a feasibility test that is
inconsistent with EPA guidance and CAA standards.'' In particular,
Earthjustice argued that the ``10 percent of the crop category's net
profits'' test used by District ``fails to analyze whether an
alternative is technologically or economically feasible.'' Earthjustice
suggested that the District should conduct a more comprehensive
economic analysis taking into consideration how the costs of
alternatives to open burning will impact production, employment,
competition, and prices.
    Reponse #2: As an initial matter, we disagree with the commenter
that the District has made a ``RACM determination'' with respect to
Rule 4103. The District has provided an assessment of the economic and
technical feasibility of potential control measures for this source
category, which

EPA has evaluated to determine whether additional controls for this
source category might be reasonably available for implementation in the
area. As stated in the TSD for our proposal, EPA will take action in
separate rulemakings on the State's RACM demonstration for the relevant
NAAQS based on an evaluation of the control measures submitted as a
whole and their overall potential to advance the applicable attainment
dates in the SJV.
    We disagree that the District's feasibility test is inconsistent
with the CAA or EPA guidance. Neither the CAA nor EPA's implementing
regulations define ``technical and economic feasibility'' for purposes
of determining what control measures are ``reasonably available,'' and,
as noted above, section 172(c)(1) provides considerable deference to
States' determinations of what control measures are reasonably
available.
    In this case, the District assessed the availability of
alternatives to open burning by evaluating both technological and
economic feasibility. See, e.g., Staff Report Sec.  1.2. For those crop
categories for which it found a technically feasible alternative to
burning, the District assessed economic feasibility by comparing the
per-acre costs for the alternative to the per-acre net profit for that
category. Id. Sec.  1.2.2. Where an alternative's cost exceeded ten
percent of profits, the District found the alternative to be
economically infeasible. Id. Table 9-1. As explained by the District
``[t]he 10 percent threshold utilized in this analysis represents the
economic significance level generally utilized by the District in the
development of District rules, and represents the level that a
regulatory action would pose a significant economic impact to affected
sources.'' Id. Sec.  1.2.2.
    As we have previously noted, looking at the percent of profits can
provide useful information concerning the economic feasibility of
particular control measures. See, e.g., 75 FR 2082. Although we
encourage the District to conduct further economic analysis of the
feasibility of alternatives to open burning, we also recognize that
resource constraints limit the amount of analysis that the District can
perform.
    We also note that our evaluation of the stringency of the rule does
not rest solely upon the District's assessment of economic and
technical feasibility, but also takes into consideration other
indicators of technical and economic feasibility. See 72 FR 20614 (``in
reviewing the State's selection of measures for RACM * * * EPA may
independently supplement the rationale of the State * * *''). For
example, as noted in the TSD, we compared the control requirements in
Rule 4103 with analogous rules in other local districts and states and
concluded that Rule 4103 was as stringent as or more stringent than
those other rules. We have not received any information to undermine
this conclusion. As such, we continue to believe that Rule 4103
requires all control measures that have been demonstrated to be
``reasonably available'' for open burning activities in the San Joaquin
Valley.
    Comment #3: Earthjustice referred to a letter indicating that the
District will no longer permit open burning of citrus orchard removals
``when case-by-case analysis indicates sufficient biomass plant
capacity and the availability of economically feasible chipping
services.'' Earthjustice argued that ``[s]uch Director's discretion is
not approvable into the SIP.''
    Response #3: The District has not submitted these additional
restrictions on open burning for approval into the SIP, and we
therefore do not need to evaluate their approvability, and do not rely
on them for our approval of Rule 4103.
    Comment #4: Earthjustice argued that, ``Even if EPA finds the
District's percent of profits test is a sufficient means of
demonstrating economic infeasibility to reject potential RACM controls,
EPA should reject the proposed rule because the District's application
of this test is flawed.''
    Response #4: As noted above, we have considered other factors in
addition to the District's ``percent of profits'' test in assessing the
technical and economic feasibility of potential RACM controls.
Nonetheless, Earthjustice's specific points regarding the District's
application of the percent of profits are addressed below.
    Comment #4.a: Earthjustice noted that ``the District calculated the
cost of compliance `after tax' without accounting for tax implications
of increased control costs'' and asserted that ``[t]his failure to
adjust the cost estimates precludes any meaningful analysis of costs.''
    Response #4.a: District staff explained that their calculations
followed ``EPA and ARB established methodologies.'' Additionally,
District staff clarified that, ``the primary costs associated with
potential alternatives to open burning result from service costs, such
as through the hiring of chipping and hauling services. The District
does not expect tax implications associated with these non-capital
expenditures, if any, to impact the cost analyses associated with this
project.'' \1\ We are not aware of any information that contradicts the
District's assessment in this regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Email from Koshoua Thao, SJVUAPCD, to Rynda Kay, EPA,
September 22, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #4.b: Earthjustice commented that, ``the District uses a
10-year cost amortization schedule without providing a rational basis
for this term of years.'' Earthjustice argued that this assumption
underestimates the lifespan of the vineyards and orchards and therefore
produces artificially high annual cost figures.
    Response #4.b: In response to this comment, District staff noted
that Appendix H to the Staff Report provided information on the
productivity over time of specific crops. District staff also listed
numerous reasons for assuming a 10-year amortization schedule that were
provided when this issue was raised at a California Senate Hearing
including, for example:
    1. 10-year analysis is used to standardize comparisons across
various source categories (Example: 10-year analysis is also used for
boilers, engines, and other source categories with real life spans in
excess of 20-30 years).
    2. Standard 10-year analysis is used by the California Air
Resources Board and air districts for evaluating air pollution control
economics.
    3. Farms can change owners and change crops fairly frequently: For
farms, periods longer than 10 years are speculative since farm
viability is subject to global market forces, weather, water
availability, etc.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #4.c: Earthjustice contended that the District ``inserted
baseless assumptions to inflate the claimed costs. For example, the
District assumes citrus root removal material must be separated from
the tree material and transported to a composting facility at an
additional cost of $244 per acre.'' Earthjustice claimed that, contrary
to this assumption, biomass facility operators have indicated that
roots can be chipped and transported to biomass facilities along with
the rest of the chipped material. Similarly, Earthjustice asserted that
the evidence in the record undermines the District's suggestion that
grinding and hauling material to a biomass plant may not be technically
feasible.
    Response #4.c: We acknowledge some uncertainty about the cost of
citrus root removal and disposal. According to District staff, ``the
root removal process is independent from the chipping and biomass
operations.'' Staff Report Appendix D at D-34. The District

explains, ``Citrus is often grown in clay-like soil that adheres to its
roots'' and ``biomass power plant operators will not accept any organic
material with dirt or other unburnable contaminants''.\3\ We do not
dispute that biomass facilities have indicated that roots can be
chipped and transported to biomass facilities, but we are not aware of
any other evidence to support this claim and demonstrate that root
chipping and biomass burning is reasonably available. This appears to
be an evolving area and we encourage the District to reexamine whether
it may be possible to send some or all citrus roots to biomass rather
than landfill or compost. Nonetheless, at this time, we do not have
sufficient specific evidence to challenge the District's assumption in
this regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #4.d: Earthjustice argued that ``[t]he District's allowance
for walnut, almond, and pecan growers whose total nut acreage is less
than 3,500 acres to burn 20 acres of prunings, plus an additional
unrestricted amount if certain conditions are met, blatantly disregards
any economic feasibility analysis.''
    Response #4.d: We disagree that this allowance disregards any
economic feasibility analysis. The District found that the cost of
shredding up to 20 acres at once was not economically feasible and that
shredding 20-plus acres was feasible only when a custom shredder was
available. See Staff Report Sec.  3.7.3. As a result, the District
adopted an automatic 20 acre allowance plus a discretionary allowance
depending on contractor availability.
    Comment #5: Earthjustice contended that additional reductions are
reasonably available under the appropriate feasibility analysis. The
specific arguments raised by Earthjustice in support of its contention
are addressed below.
    Comment #5.a: Earthjustice argued that the proposed alternative to
open burning of citrus orchard removal materials (grinding and hauling
orchard removal materials to a biomass plant) is technically feasible
because the biomass power plants that use San Joaquin Valley
agricultural waste are physically capable of handling the 54,035-ton
increase in material that would be caused by a total prohibition on
burning citrus orchard removals.
    Response #5.a: We agree that it is technically feasible to grind
and haul orchard removal materials to a biomass plant. It is less
clear, however, whether it is economically feasible. Even assuming that
there is currently sufficient capacity for citrus removal materials at
biomass facilities, the District has concluded that ``reliance on
biomass facilities as a primary, long-term alternative method to open
burning is not possible since there are no long-term federal or state
funding commitments for the biomass facilities * * *'' Staff Report at
7-50. In addition, the Staff Report notes that, since urban waste is
typically less expensive than agricultural waste, urban waste
(particularly construction debris) may displace some of the current
capacity for agricultural waste, as the economy improves and
construction activity increases. Id. at 7-49. Additionally, the
District explains that ``citrus material is typically less desirable''
than other biomass materials \4\ and must be blended with other biomass
fuels. Staff Report at 7-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of this economic uncertainty, EPA has recommended that the
District continue closely monitoring the economic feasibility of
sending citrus orchard removal material to biomass. In response, the
District has agreed to ban the burning of citrus orchards ``on a case-
by-case basis when analysis indicates sufficient biomass capacity and
the availability of economically feasible chipping services.'' \5\ We
believe that this interim step will have significant air quality
benefits and we encourage the District to consider whether a complete
or partial ban on citrus orchard burning is economically feasible.
Nonetheless, we continue to believe that such a ban has not been
demonstrated to be economically feasible at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See letter dated June 27, 2011, from Seyed Sadredin to
Deborah Jordan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #5.b: Earthjustice claimed that the proposed alternative to
open burning of almond, walnut and pecan prunings (shredding the
prunings and leaving the materials on the orchard floor) is technically
feasible.
    Response #5.b: As with the previous comment, we agree that this is
technically feasible, but not that it has been shown to be economically
feasible at all times. The District concluded that, although shredding
is a technically feasible alternative to open burning, there is an
insufficient supply of custom shredding services available to smaller
farms. Staff Report Appendix D at D-36. EPA believes this is a
reasonable conclusion based on historical data. However, as noted in
the TSD, we recommend that the District reevaluate the availability of
contractors to shred nut prunings based on updated data.
    Comment #5.c: Earthjustice claimed that these proposed alternatives
to open burning of citrus orchard removal materials and almond, walnut
and pecan prunings are also economically feasible.
    Response #5.c: The District's economic analysis indicated that
sending citrus removal materials to biomass was not economically
feasible. Staff Report Table 3-4. Similarly, the District's economic
analysis indicated that the cost of shredding prunings from less than
25 acres at once was not economically feasible. For the reasons noted
above (see responses 4c, 4d, and 5a) and given that no other agency has
adopted more stringent restrictions on open burning than those
currently in place in the District, we believe these conclusions are
reasonable at this time. However, we encourage the District to
reevaluate these postponements to ensure that the State adopts all RACM
for open burning activities as expeditiously as practicable.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the
submitted rules comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving
these rules into the California SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 action 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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 7, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: September 30, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(388)(i)(B)(2),
(3), (4) and (5) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (388) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (2) Rule 4103, ``Open Burning,'' amended on April 15, 2010, not
effective until June 1, 2010.
    (3) Table 9-1, Revised Proposed Staff Report and Recommendations on
Agricultural Burning, approved on May 20, 2010.
    (4) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Resolution
No. 10-05-22, adopted on May 20, 2010.
    (5) California Air Resources Board, Resolution 10-24, adopted on
May 27, 2010.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2011-33660 Filed 1-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29993-29994]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10770]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88866]

Order Designating Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.,
To Receive Form X-17A-5 (FOCUS Report) From Certain Security-Based Swap
Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants

May 14, 2020.

I. Introduction

    Currently, broker-dealers are required to file on a monthly or
quarterly basis various parts (Part II, Part IIB, Part II CSE, or Part
IIA) of Form X-17A-5 (``FOCUS Report''), a form which is used to report
financial and operational information. On September 19, 2019, the
Commission adopted recordkeeping, reporting, and notification
requirements for security-based swap dealers and major security-based
swap participants (collectively, ``security-based swap entities'' or
``SBSEs'') and additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
broker-dealers to account for their security-based swap activities.\1\
In adopting these requirements, the Commission amended Part II of the
FOCUS Report to elicit additional information about the security-based
swap activities of broker-dealers that file Part II, including broker-
dealers that will also be registered as SBSEs. In addition, the
Commission adopted amendments that will require the broker-dealers that
currently file Part IIB and Part II CSE to file revised Part II.
Further, the Commission adopted a rule (``Rule 18a-7'') pursuant to
Section 15F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'')
that will require SBSEs that are not also registered with the
Commission as broker-dealers or regulated by a prudential regulator
(``stand-alone SBSEs'') to file Part II of the FOCUS Report on a
monthly basis and SBSEs for which there is a prudential regulator
(``bank SBSEs'') to file new Part IIC of the FOCUS Report on a
quarterly basis.\2\ The compliance date for these entities to file
revised Part II or new Part IIC of the FOCUS Report is October 6,
2021.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Security-
Based Swap Dealers, Major Security-Based Swap Participants, and
Broker-Dealers, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87005 (Sept. 19,
2019), 84 FR 68550 (Dec. 16, 2019) (``Recordkeeping Adopting
Release'').
    \2\ See 17 CFR 240.18a-7(a)(1) (applicable to stand-alone
SBSEs); 17 CFR 240.18a-7(a)(2) (applicable to bank SBSEs). Revised
Part II of the FOCUS Report is available on pages 68672-68721 of the
Recordkeeping Adopting Release. New Part IIC of the FOCUS Report is
available on pages 68722-68733 of the Recordkeeping Adopting
Release.
    \3\ See Recordkeeping Adopting Release, 84 FR at 68600-601;
Cross-Border Application of Certain Security-Based Swap
Requirements, Exchange Act Release No. 87780 (Dec. 18, 2019), 85 FR
6270 (Feb. 4, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most broker-dealers currently file the FOCUS Report electronically
on the eFOCUS system \4\ developed by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''). These broker-dealers file the FOCUS Report
pursuant to a plan established by the broker-dealer's self-regulatory
organization (``SRO''), the procedures and provisions of which have
been submitted to and declared effective by the Commission pursuant to
paragraph (a)(3) of Exchange Act Rule 17a-5.\5\

Because stand-alone SBSEs and bank SBSEs will not be dually registered
as broker-dealers, they will not be supervised by SROs and therefore
are not subject to the SRO plans requiring the FOCUS Report to be filed
on FINRA's eFOCUS system. Rule 18a-7 requires stand-alone SBSEs and
bank SBSEs to file the FOCUS Report with ``the Commission or its
designee'' \6\ to provide the Commission with the option of requiring
that these registrants file the FOCUS Report with a third party.\7\ By
this order, the Commission is designating FINRA as the organization
with which stand-alone SBSEs and bank SBSEs must file revised Part II
and new Part IIC of the FOCUS Report, respectively, on and after the
October 6, 2021, compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FINRA's eFOCUS system is available at https://www.finra.org/filing-reporting/efocus.
    \5\ See 17 CFR 240.17a-5(a)(3).
    \6\ See 17 CFR 240.18a-7(a).
    \7\ See Recordkeeping Adopting Release, 84 FR at 68572.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    FINRA is uniquely qualified to provide the Commission with a
familiar and consolidated platform for stand-alone SBSEs and bank SBSEs
to file the FOCUS Report, uniform ancillary ongoing services associated
with these filings, and a consolidated platform for transmitting this
data to the Commission.
    First, FINRA-supervised broker-dealers currently file the FOCUS
Report through the eFOCUS system owned and operated by FINRA. The
Commission anticipates many firms that register as stand-alone SBSEs
and bank SBSEs will be affiliated with broker-dealers that currently
use the eFOCUS system. FINRA's eFOCUS system is unique in that it would
enable the broker-dealer and non-broker-dealer entities to file both
entities' FOCUS Reports on the same platform using the same preexisting
templates, software, and procedures currently used by the broker-
dealer.
    Second, FINRA is uniquely able to transmit the data in the FOCUS
Report filings by broker-dealers and non-broker-dealer SBSEs in a
consolidated data transmission to the Commission. Thus, Commission
staff will be able to compare data between these different types of
entities in a consistent manner and in the same database, which will
allow staff to monitor these registrants more effectively.
    Third, if FINRA is not designated to receive FOCUS Report filings
from stand-alone and bank SBSEs, a separate, parallel filing system
would need to be created only for non-FINRA supervised filers, which
would create complexity and redundancy because the same information for
required filers would be located on two different filing systems. This,
in turn, could create unnecessary confusion and uncertainty for filers.
It might also inadvertently result in different available services
simply based on which filing system the entity is assigned to use.

III. Conclusion

    It is hereby ordered that FINRA is designated as the organization
with which stand-alone SBSEs must file Part II of FOCUS Report and bank
SBSEs must file Part IIC of the FOCUS Report in accordance with the
requirements of those filings, Section 15F of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 18a-7.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Technical instructions for filing the FOCUS Report with
FINRA will be made available on the Commission's or FINRA's website
before the October 6, 2021, compliance date.

    By the Commission.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-10770 Filed 5-18-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


         EPA Presentation on Regs at USWAG Tanks Subcommittee Meeting
                               February 28, 2012

EPA Staff attended the Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Tanks subcommittee meeting.  EPA presented an overview of the proposed changes to the UST regulations.  The discussion focused on walkthough inspections, definitions of what is a UST system, operator training, and what wastewater treatment tanks will be fully regulated under the proposal.

EPA Attendees:
Carolyn Hoskinson, OUST
Paul Miller, OUST
Liz McDermott, OUST

USWAG Attendees:
Ed Aiken, Pepco Holdings
Rich Bozek, EEI
Lauren Casey, Oncor Electric Delivery
Nancy Clancy, San Diego Gas & Electric
Paula Coker, TVA
Corey Giles, FirstEnergy
Brian Henk, KCP&L
Rhonda Herzog, Duke Energy
Melissa Horton, Southern Company
Carolyn Hoskinson, EPA
Michael Lauro, National Grid
Lawrence Liden, Constellation Energy
Fariba Mahvi, Pepco Holdings
Kyle Manning, Progress Energy
Liz McDermott, EPA
Paul Miller, EPA
Mike Miller, Entergy
Tony Morse, Alliant Energy
Angela Nealen, Constellation Energy
Tim Nelson, SCANA Services
Gayle Novak, USWAG
David Price, Tri-State Generation and Transmission
Jim Puckett, Dominion
James Rachwal, DTE Energy
Patrick Renshaw, PPL Corp.
Jim Roewer, USWAG
Jeff Spillyards, Entergy Services
Mark Wannemueller, Vectren
Aaron Wallisch, Venable LLP
William Weissman, Venable LLP

USWAG Teleconference Participants:
Kieran Brown, PSEG
Brad Burke, Southern Co.
Allison Castronovo, WE Energies
Bud Chamlin, Ameren
Michael Cullen, PSEG
David Dakin, Rochester Gas & Electric
Jeffrey Davis, NRG Energy
Eric Dessen, Con Ed
Valentine Ejiofor, AEP
Coleen Fleming, Oncor
Tim George, Alabama Power Co.
Mark Gerlach, Xcel Energy
Michael Grazioli, Exelon-ComEd
Elizabeth Hellman, WE Energies
Matthew Hodge, APS
George Horvat, PECO Energy
Jim Klosterbuer, Alliant
Roy Koster, Central Maine
Jim Kudlinski, Salt River Project
Mark Landin, SCE
Dwight Little, Duke Energy
Ernie Luxton, Oncor
Lance Martin, Exelon
Anke Neumann, Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Terry Newman, SCANA
Jill Parker-Witt, AEP
Mark Passarini, SCE
Cheri Peifer, Exelon
Leo Quinn, PS Company of New Hampshire
Karen Reese, FirstEnergy Corp.
Dear Schramm, Wabash Valley
Shirley Scharff, Integrys Energy Group
Kevin Schroeder, NRG Energy
Owen Schwartz, Duke Energy
Frank Skomorucha, GenOn
Bob Stafford, Progress Energy
Rick Stemhoff, WE Energies
Alan Wood, AEP
Jeff Yockey, Tucson Electric Power