The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), 1 authorizes the United States Department of Energy (“DOE”) to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B  2 of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. These products include miscellaneous refrigeration products (“MREFs”) along with more common consumer refrigeration products ( i.e., refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers). These products are the focus of this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR” or “proposal”) and collectively comprise what DOE simply refers to in this document as “consumer refrigeration products” in this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1))

In addition to identifying particular consumer products and commercial equipment as covered under the statute, EPCA permits the Secretary of Energy to classify additional types of consumer products as covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20)) DOE added MREFs as covered products through a final determination of coverage published in the Federal Register on July 18, 2016 (“July 2016 final rule”). 81 FR 46768. MREFs are consumer refrigeration products, other than refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers. 10 CFR 430.2. MREFs include refrigeration products such as coolers ( e.g., wine chillers and other specialty products) and combination cooler refrigeration products ( e.g., wine chillers and other specialty compartments combined with a refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer).

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).

The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making other representations about the efficiency of those consumer products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

This proposal is intended to narrowly clarify and correct inconsistencies in certain product category determination specifications within the certification provisions for the consumer refrigeration products that are the subject of this document.

DOE's regulations generally categorize consumer refrigeration products into different product categories based on operating temperatures, among other criteria. While this proposal does not propose to alter any of the definitions associated with these different consumer refrigeration products, a basic understanding of the definitions for these different product categories—all of which are found in 10 CFR 430.2—is helpful.

DOE defines a “refrigerator” as a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only and is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C) as determined according to 10 CFR 429.14(d)(2). A refrigerator may include a compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 32 °F (0 °C), but does not provide a separate low temperature compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 8 °F (−13.3 °C) as determined according to 10 CFR 429.14(d)(2). This term does not include:

(1) Any product that does not include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly;

(2) A cooler; or

(3) Any miscellaneous refrigeration product that must comply with an applicable miscellaneous refrigeration product energy conservation standard.

Section 430.2 defines a “freezer” as a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only and is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures of 0 °F (−17.8 °C) or below as determined according to 10 CFR 429.14(d)(2). It does not include any refrigerated cabinet that consists solely of an automatic ice maker and an ice storage bin arranged so that operation of the automatic icemaker fills the bin to its capacity. The term does not include:

(1) Any product that does not include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly; or

(2) Any miscellaneous refrigeration product that must comply with an applicable miscellaneous refrigeration product energy conservation standard.

A “refrigerator-freezer” is defined as a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only and consists of two or more compartments where at least one of the compartments is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C) as determined according to 10 CFR 429.14(d)(2), and at least one other compartment is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures of 8 °F (−13.3 °C) and may be adjusted by the user to a temperature of 0 °F (−17.8 °C) or below as determined according to 10 CFR 429.14(d)(2). The term does not include:

(1) Any product that does not include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly; or

(2) Any miscellaneous refrigeration product that must comply with an applicable miscellaneous refrigeration product energy conservation standard.

The term “miscellaneous refrigeration product” means a consumer refrigeration product other than a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer, which includes coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products.

A “cooler” is a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration capable of operating on single-phase, alternating current and is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures either:

(1) No lower than 39 °F (3.9 °C); or

(2) In a range that extends no lower than 37 °F (2.8 °C) but at least as high as 60 °F (15.6 °C) as determined according to 10 CFR 429.61(d)(2).

A “combination cooler refrigeration product” means any cooler-refrigerator, cooler-refrigerator-freezer, or cooler-freezer.

DOE's regulations define a “cooler-refrigerator” as a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only, and consists of two or more compartments, including at least one cooler compartment as defined in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B appendix A, where:

(1) At least one of the remaining compartments is not a cooler compartment as defined in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B appendix A and is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C) as determined according to 10 CFR 429.61(d)(2);

(2) The cabinet may also include a compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 32 °F (0 °C) as determined according to 10 CFR 429.61(d)(2); but

(3) The cabinet does not provide a separate low temperature compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 8 °F (−13.3 °C) as determined according to 10 CFR 429.61(d)(2).

A “cooler-refrigerator-freezer” means a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only, and consists of three or more compartments, including at least one cooler compartment as defined in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B appendix A, where:

(1) At least one of the remaining compartments is not a cooler compartment as defined in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B appendix A and is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C) as determined according to 10 CFR 429.61(d)(2); and

(2) At least one other compartment is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 8 °F (−13.3 °C) and may be adjusted by the user to a temperature of 0 °F (−17.8 °C) or below as determined according to 10 CFR 429.61(d)(2).

A “cooler-freezer” means a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only, and consists of two or more compartments, including at least one cooler compartment as defined in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B appendix A, where the remaining compartment(s) are capable of maintaining compartment temperatures at 0 °F (−17.8 °C) or below as determined according to the provisions in 10 CFR 429.61(d)(2).

See generally 10 CFR 430.2.

The July 2016 final rule established provisions in 10 CFR 429.14 (for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers) and 10 CFR 429.61 (for MREFs) to provide instructions regarding product category determinations, intended to be consistent with the definitions established in 10 CFR 430.2. 81 FR 46768, 46790.

In particular, § 429.61(d)(2) specifies for MREFs that compartment temperatures used to determine product category shall be the mean of the measured compartment temperatures at the “coldest setting” for each tested unit of the basic model according to the provisions of appendix A. This reference to the coldest setting is necessary to determine whether a compartment is a cooler because the definition of cooler—by referencing the capability of maintaining compartment temperatures no lower than 39 °F (3.9 °C) [emphasis added]—necessarily requires evaluating the coldest setting available for the subject compartment ( i.e., testing the coldest setting is necessary to determine the lowest temperature that the compartment is capable of achieving). See 10 CFR 430.2. Accordingly, the measurement of the compartment temperature for the purpose of defining a compartment as a “cooler compartment” is conducted at “the coldest setting.”

In the July 2016 final rule, DOE inadvertently applied the “coldest setting” wording in 10 CFR 429.14 and 10 CFR 429.61 to other types of consumer refrigeration products for which the “coldest setting” is not the appropriate setting for determining product classification; specifically, for consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and for compartments in miscellaneous refrigeration products other than cooler compartments. As illustrated in the paragraphs that follow, determining product classification for these types of consumer refrigeration products is based on the capability of a product to operate within an applicable temperature range and is not specific to the lowest capable operating temperature ( i.e., not specific to the “coldest setting”).

By way of example, in considering the refrigerator definition, determining whether a compartment is a fresh food ( i.e., refrigerator) compartment is not specific to the lowest capable operating temperature. Rather, to be defined as a refrigerator, a product must be capable of maintaining a compartment temperature within a specified range, which may not correspond to the coldest setting available on the product. In particular, a refrigerator is defined, in part, as being capable of maintaining a compartment temperature above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C). 10 CFR 430.2. If the coldest setting on a refrigerator were to result in a compartment temperature less than 32 °F (0 °C) (for example, 31 °F), testing the product at the coldest setting would yield a temperature outside the specified range (in this example, 31 °F) and therefore would not provide an indication of the product's capability to maintain a compartment temperature above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C). For such a product, determining product category based on the coldest setting alone (as currently suggested by 10 CFR 429.14(d)(2)) would inadvertently exclude the product from the refrigerator definition. In contrast, evaluating the temperature range of the product as tested using appendix A would appropriately identify that the product is capable of maintaining a compartment temperature above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C), thus meeting the definition of refrigerator. DOE's proposal seeks to remedy this current inconsistency.

The issue is further illustrated by the definitions for cooler-refrigerator and cooler-freezer, which are based on the full range of temperatures at which the non-cooler compartment(s) is capable of operating without specifying a maximum or minimum operating capability. As such, the instruction to measure the non-cooler compartment temperature at the coldest setting to determine that compartment's classification, as instructed under 10 CFR 429.61(d)(2), is also inconsistent with the definitions of cooler-refrigerator and cooler-freezer.

Finally, DOE notes that the rulemaking leading to the July 2016 final rule emphasized that DOE did not intend to redefine the scope of coverage for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers, or to amend those definitions in a manner that would affect how a covered product at the time would be classified. 81 FR 46768, 46777 ( See also 81 FR 11454, 11459-11460).

For these reasons, DOE has tentatively determined that the coldest setting instruction as currently included in 10 CFR 429.14(d)(2) and 10 CFR 429.61(d)(2) is inconsistent with the definitions established in the July 2016 final rule and is proposing amendments to correct this inconsistency. To address this issue, DOE is proposing that the instructions for determining compartment classification would differentiate cooler compartments from compartments other than cooler compartments. For cooler compartments, DOE proposes no change to the current requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.61(d)(2), since the coldest setting is the appropriate setting with which to evaluate a cooler compartment. For compartments other than cooler compartments, DOE is proposing to amend 10 CFR 429.14(d)(2) and 10 CFR 429.61(d)(2) to remove the reference to operation at the coldest setting. For such compartments, the compartment temperature settings used to determine product category would be used to evaluate the full range of temperatures that the product can maintain within the compartment, thus allowing for accurate application of the definitions for these products.

This document identifies and proposes amendments to 10 CFR part 429 addressing the inconsistencies introduced in the July 2016 final rule. The proposed corrections in this document do not otherwise affect the substance of the rulemaking or any conclusions reached in support of the July 2016 final rule.

In a test procedure final rule published on April 21, 2014 (“April 2014 final rule”), DOE acknowledged that a product may be capable of operating at the temperatures specified in both the refrigerator definition and the freezer definition ( i.e., a “convertible” product) and that such a product would be required to certify as both a refrigerator and a freezer if the product meets the applicable definition(s). 79 FR 22320, 22343. This would not be the result if the temperature were measured only at the coldest setting for determining classification of a compartment. The proposed amendments to 10 CFR 429.14 and 10 CFR 429.61 discussed in section II.A of this document would clarify the certification process for convertible products as multiple product types, as intended in the April 2014 final rule. To further clarify the appropriate certification of such products, DOE is proposing to further amend 10 CFR 429.14 and 10 CFR 429.61 to explicitly specify that if a product is capable of operating with compartment temperatures as specified in multiple product category definitions, the model must be tested and certified to each applicable product category. For example, a single-compartment product capable of maintaining compartment temperatures of −2 °F and 36 °F would meet both the refrigerator (above 32 °F and below 39 °F) and freezer (0 °F or below) definitions and would be certified to each corresponding applicable product class.

DOE is seeking comment on these proposed amendments to 10 CFR part 429, particularly as to whether these proposals will sufficiently address the issues identified in this document.

Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action is consistent with these principles.

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (“IRFA”) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

This NOPR identifies and proposes amendments to address inconsistencies introduced in the July 2016 final rule. The proposed corrections in this NOPR do not otherwise affect the scope or substance of the current test procedures for consumer refrigeration products.

Therefore, DOE initially concludes that the impacts of the amendments proposed in this NOPR would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and that the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. DOE will transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

Manufacturers of consumer refrigeration products must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including consumer refrigeration products. ( See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

DOE is not proposing to amend the certification or reporting requirements for consumer refrigeration products.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

In this NOPR, DOE proposes amendments to certification-related provisions for certain consumer refrigeration products. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting certification requirements for consumer products and industrial equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

The proposed regulatory action to amend the certification provisions for certain consumer refrigeration products is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.

Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (“CBI”)). Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No faxes will be accepted.

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 7, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend part 429 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2022-0675; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01406-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3229; email Vladimir.Ulyanov@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0279, dated December 15, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0279) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model Airbus A318-111, A318-112, A318-121, A318-122, A319-111, A319-112, A319-113, A319-114, A319-115, A319-131, A319-132, A319-133, A319-151N, A319-153N, A319-171N, A320-211, A320-212, A320-214, A320-215, A320-216, A320-231, A320-232, A320-233, A320-251N, A320-252N, A320-253N, A320-271N, A320-272N, A320-273N, A321-111, A321-112, A321-131, A321-211, A321-212, A321-213, A321-231, A321-232, A321-251N, A321-251NX, A321-252N, A321-252NX, A321-253N, A321-253NX, A321-271N, A321-271NX, A321-272N, and A321-272NX airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.

This proposed AD was prompted by unclear and incomplete placard instructions for the doghouse door lock. A doghouse contains emergency equipment intended to minimize the effects of survivable accidents. The handling instruction for the doghouse door lock is shown on a placard installed on the doghouse door near the door lock. Following the incorrect instructions on the placard can lead to incorrect operation of the doghouse door lock.

The FAA is proposing this AD to address the potential failure of the doghouse door lock latch, which could result in locking the door in the closed position and preventing access to the emergency equipment in the doghouse, possibly resulting in injury to occupants. See the MCAI for additional background information.

EASA AD 2021-0279 specifies procedures for installing improved handling instruction placards on affected doghouses and re-identifying the doghouses, and prohibits installation of affected doghouses under certain conditions. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2021-0279 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2021-0279 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2021-0279 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0279 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2021-0279. Service information required by EASA AD 2021-0279 for compliance will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0675 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 1,825 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2022-0677; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01378-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Thomas Niczky, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7347; email 9-avs-nyaco-cos@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2021-45, dated December 7, 2021 (TCCA AD CF-2021-45) (also referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0677.

This proposed AD was prompted by the investigation of erroneous radio altimeter data that was displayed on an in-service airplane. It was revealed that certain radio altimeter coaxial cables, from Radio Altimeters A28 and A29 to antennas, have been reported damaged, due their light weight construction, and their proximity to the access door on the eBay. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the damage to or kinks in the radio altimeter coaxial cables which could lead to signal loss or degradation, and possibly un-annunciated loss of terrain awareness warning system aural cues during approach. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 700-91-7502, Revision 01, dated August 31, 2020. This service information describes procedures for replacing affected radio altimeter coaxial cables. The replacement includes removing the existing radio altimeter coaxial cables, replacing with new coaxial cables, installing new clamps to accommodate the coaxial bend radius along the coaxial routing, and re-routing new radio altimeter coaxial cables from the wing to fuselage fairing, in the left and right aft fuselage, and in the aft fuselage belly fairing.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 27 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

An NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2022 (87 FR 32104) Docket No. FAA-2022-0692 to amend 14 CFR part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at C. David Campbell Field-Corsicana Municipal Airport, Corsicana, TX. Subsequent to publication, the FAA discovered that the proposed action was completed by a final rule, FR Doc. 2022-03995, published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2022 (87 FR 10714). Therefore, the FAA is withdrawing the NPRM.

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 would establish Class E airspace extending upward form 700 feet above the surface at Vinita Municipal Airport, Vinita, OK, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2022-0759/Airspace Docket No. 22-ASW-14.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov . Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Vinita Municipal Airport, Vinita, OK.

This action supports the establishment of public instrument procedures at Vinita Municipal Airport.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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 the 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 would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0765; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-22) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0765; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-22.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Sections 105(e) and (f) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e) and (f), authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling and advertising of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act requires that these regulations, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and in advertisements, and ensure that labels and advertisements provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product.

TTB administers these FAA Act provisions pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury has delegated certain administrative and enforcement authorities to TTB through Treasury Order 120-01.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) sets forth standards promulgated under the FAA Act to ensure that wine labeling and advertising provides adequate information to consumers as to the identity and quality of the product. The TTB regulations at 27 CFR 4.39 set forth rules regarding certain wine labeling practices that could be considered deceptive or misleading, and are therefore prohibited. Among these practices, TTB regulations prohibit labeling wine to indicate that it contains distilled spirits, with one exception discussed in detail below. Specifically, § 4.39(a)(7) states that wine containers and labels may not bear “any statement, design, device, or representation (other than a statement of alcohol content in conformity with 27 CFR 4.36) which tends to create the impression that a wine (i) Contains distilled spirits; (ii) Is comparable to a distilled spirit; or (iii) Has intoxicating qualities.”

Likewise, the TTB regulations at 27 CFR 4.64 address certain wine advertising practices that are prohibited as deceptive or misleading, and provide a similar prohibition that applies to labeling. Specifically, § 4.64(a)(8) provides that wine advertisements may not contain any statement, design, device, or representation which tends to create the impression that a wine contains distilled spirits, is comparable to distilled spirits, or has intoxicating qualities.

These labeling and advertising provisions were promulgated in the 1930s after the repeal of Prohibition, likely as a measure to prevent winemakers from misrepresenting to consumers that their wine contained or was comparable to distilled spirits. In the one exception to this prohibition, if a statement of composition is required to appear as the designation of a product not defined in part 4, the statement of composition may include a reference to the type of distilled spirits that has been added to the wine.

At 27 CFR 4.21, the TTB regulations set forth categories of wine that help identify the composition, character, and origin of the wine. These identifiers are known as class and type designations. For example, “grape wine” is a class of wine, and “Muscadine” is a type of grape wine. This section also sets forth the standards for those classes and types, referred to in this document as “standards of identity.” The consistent and accurate designation of wine leads to consumer and trade understanding of the quality and identity of the wine. The standards of identity specifically recognize that certain types of distilled spirits may be added to certain classes of wine, that is, to grape wine, fruit wine, agricultural wine, and aperitif wine. See § 4.21(a), (e), (f), and (g), respectively. However, because of the prohibitions in §§ 4.39(a)(7) and 4.64(a)(8) regarding references to distilled spirits, wine bottlers generally have not been able to state on the label or in advertising that those wines contain spirits.

If a wine does not meet any of the defined standards of identity, the wine label must bear, instead of a class and type designation, a statement of composition. See 27 CFR 4.34(a). In such cases, the statement of composition may include a reference to the type of distilled spirits contained in the wine. See §§ 4.39(a)(7) and 4.64(a)(8). In these instances, statements of composition serve as the product's class and type designation and must adequately reflect the composition and character of the product. For instance, a raspberry-flavored grape wine that contains brandy may be labeled as “Grape wine with natural flavor and apple brandy.”

The Sweet and Fortified Wine Association, a wine industry trade group, submitted a petition to TTB requesting that the regulations be revised to allow dessert grape wines to be labeled with the words “fortified” and/or “grape (wine) spirits added.” These industry members produce wines that are typically standard grape wines in the style of port, sherry, madeira, or other types of dessert wine which contain added brandy or other distilled spirits. However, as discussed above, § 4.39(a)(7) prohibits statements on standard wines ( i.e. wines which meet a class and type designation) which indicate that the wine contains distilled spirits.

According to the petition, allowing label statements that disclose the presence of added spirits in a wine will provide greater information to consumers, while prohibiting producers from fully disclosing the presence of added spirits could be misleading and is not consistent with TTB's consumer protection mission. Additionally, the petitioner asserts that producers of fortified wines are finding it difficult to accurately communicate on the label that a wine has been fortified with spirits since most semi-generic names for fortified wines, such as “port” or “sherry,” are now prohibited by law from appearing on domestic wine labels (unless approved by TTB prior to March 10, 2006). See 26 U.S.C. 5388(c). 1 The petitioner believes that this puts producers of new fortified wines at a competitive disadvantage in the market place.

The petitioner contends that § 4.39(a)(7) is an antiquated and archaic regulation that is irrelevant to American wine consumers in the 21st century. The petitioner argues that concerns from the post-Prohibition era that terms such as “fortified” imply significant alcohol content or could increase the incidence of intoxication have little bearing on reality. Instead, according to the petitioner, most fortified wines have an alcohol content of 18 to 19 percent, which the petitioner asserts is only slightly higher than what many unfortified wines achieve as a result of natural fermentation and winemaking practices.

According to the petition, it is the petitioner's understanding that TTB previously suggested that using the term “fortified” on a label could be problematic because the term “fortified” has a meaning for consumers under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations regarding the labeling of products with added vitamins, minerals, or protein. The petitioner asserts that consumers will not be confused by the word “fortified” because the word has a different meaning when applied to wine than it does when applied to food. The petitioner supports its claim by stating that these alternate meanings can be found in dictionary definitions of “fortified.” As one such example, the petitioner notes that Merriam-Webster defines “fortified wine” as a wine to which alcohol, usually in the form of grape brandy, has been added during or after fermentation. Additionally, the petitioner notes that TTB regulations use the word “fortification” to mean containing added spirits, citing the definition of “added brandy” in 27 CFR 4.10.

Finally, the petitioner contends that TTB's wine labeling regulations are confusing and inconsistent regarding the addition of spirits, since the standard of identity for grape wine at § 4.21(a)(6) permits the addition of alcohol to a dessert grape wine, while § 4.39(a)(7) prohibits the producer from referencing the presence of added alcohol on the wine's label, except where it appears in a required statement of composition.

The earliest wine labeling regulations issued by the Department of the Treasury under the authority of the FAA Act included a standard of identity for “fortified wine” as a class of wine. In the 1938 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, the wine labeling regulations in 27 CFR part 4 listed “fortified wine” as class six in § 4.21, the regulation which contains the standards of identity for wine. Paragraph (f) of § 4.21 defined “fortified wine,” in part, as a “product made with the addition of such brandy or alcohol as is permitted under internal-revenue laws.”

However, on August 26, 1938, the Department of the Treasury issued Regulations No. 4, Amendment No. 2, which, among other revisions, removed the fortified wine class from part 4 (3 FR 2093). That same rulemaking also added in § 4.39(a)(7) and § 4.64(a)(8), which contain prohibitions on statements related to added alcohol that are very similar to today's § 4.39(a)(7) and § 4.64(a)(8). Statements were prohibited if they created “the impression that the wine has been `fortified' or contains distilled spirits, or has intoxicating qualities,” except that a statement of composition, if required to appear as the designation of a product not defined in the regulations, could include a reference to the type of distilled spirits added to the wine.

These regulatory changes were not accompanied by an explanation. However, TTB has reviewed comments from wine industry members made during the rulemaking process regarding the word “fortified.” For example, prior to the issuance of the finalized regulations, a trade association representative expressed concerns in a July 28, 1938 memo that the word “fortified” had an “inference that the product contains a special alcoholic `kick,' ” and was therefore a selling point for certain consumers.

More recently, the word “fortified” has assumed another regulatory meaning when applied to foods and beverages. TTB has in the past advised that it viewed the idea of using “fortified” to describe certain grape wines as problematic, given that FDA regulations at 21 CFR 104.20(h)(3) define the word “fortified” to describe foods with added vitamins, minerals, or protein. Given the current use of the word “fortified” as established under FDA regulations, TTB previously took the position that authorizing the use of the term “fortified” in a way inconsistent with the FDA regulations could create consumer confusion.

After further consideration, TTB agrees with the petitioner that allowing a wine producer to disclose the presence of added spirits in a wine has the potential to provide more information to consumers, and provides producers with greater flexibility to better communicate the nature of their products to consumers. TTB also agrees that the wine industry has changed significantly since the 1930s. However, TTB is still charged by the FAA Act with ensuring that wine is labeled in such a way that consumers are not misled about the identity or quality of the product. For example, consumers should be able to readily determine that a product is wine and not a distilled spirit, and that a wine contains added distilled spirits, not vitamins.

With these concerns in mind, TTB is proposing for public comment an amendment to its regulations to allow for a specific type of reference to a wine with added distilled spirits. We believe that such references will not be misunderstood by or be misleading to consumers, and will allow for truthful information related to the identity of the product to be conveyed. Specifically, TTB is proposing to amend § 4.39(a)(7) and § 4.64(a)(8) to provide that even for wines that meet a standard of identity, if a wine contains added distilled spirits, a statement of composition may be used which indicates that distilled spirits have been added.

As discussed earlier, a statement of composition serves as the product's class and type designation when a product does not meet one of the standards of identity in § 4.21, that is, it is a wine specialty product. The statement of composition must adequately reflect the composition and character of the product. Under the current regulation, the statement of composition for a wine specialty product may reference any distilled spirits that have been added to the product. Under the proposed regulation, wines that do meet a standard of identity could also be labeled with truthful references to added distilled spirits. Thus, for example, a product that meets the standard of identity for grape dessert wine in § 4.21(a) may be labeled with a statement of composition such as “Grape wine with added brandy.” The proposed regulations would apply to any wine that contains added distilled spirits, and not just to dessert grape wines as proposed by the petitioner.

Additionally, the proposed regulations would allow the use of the word “fortified” as part of such a statement of composition—for example, “Grape wine fortified with brandy.” TTB is therefore including an example of this use of “fortified” in the proposed regulatory text. TTB believes that when the word “fortified” is used in this context there will be no misunderstanding that the statement indicates that the wine contains added vitamins, minerals, or protein. We welcome comments specifically regarding this proposal.

Further, TTB is proposing to revise §§ 4.39(a)(7)(i) and 4.64(a)(8)(i), which prohibit any statement, design, device, or representation which tends to create the impression that a wine contains distilled spirits. Under the proposal, the revision would specifically prohibit only those statements that would be false or misleading, such as, for example, a representation that created the impression that the wine contained distilled spirits when it did not. TTB also is proposing additional language that would state that when a wine does contain added distilled spirits, the wine may be labeled with a statement of composition referencing the type of distilled spirit that has been added. In general, under this proposal, a distilled spirits reference would be permissible on a wine label or in an advertisement for a wine, provided that the reference is neither false nor misleading. Similarly, under this proposal, a distilled spirits reference that appeared as part of a truthful and accurate statement of composition would not be considered misleading, as it would provide a context that more clearly communicates to the consumer that the added distilled spirit is merely an ingredient in the wine, and that the product is not a distilled spirits product. However, we invite comments on this issue.

TTB requests comments from interested members of the public. TTB is particularly interested in comments regarding whether the proposed amendments will result in statements on wine labels that could be misleading to consumers about the product. We are also interested in comments about whether a statement of composition which indicates that a wine is “fortified” with spirits could create the impression that the wine contains added vitamins, minerals, or protein. Please provide specific information in support of your comments.

Prior to the publication of this rulemaking, TTB published Notice No. 176 in the Federal Register on November 26, 2018 (83 FR 60562), which proposed to reorganize and recodify 27 CFR part 4 in order to simplify and clarify regulatory standards, and to incorporate guidance documents and current policy into the regulations. In Notice No. 176, TTB proposed to continue its current policy of allowing a reference to added distilled spirits only on the labels of wine that require a statement of composition while prohibiting such references on wines that do not require a statement of composition. Notice No. 176 also did not specifically propose to allow the use of the term “fortified” as a part a statement of composition as this notice of proposed rulemaking does.

TTB is taking this separate rulemaking action to address only the specific circumstances described in this document. As the comment period for Notice No. 176 has closed, TTB will consider any relevant comments it received in response to Notice No. 176 along with any comments made in response to this specific rulemaking in determining what action to take on this proposal.

You may submit comments on this proposal as an individual or on behalf of a business or other organization via the Regulations.gov website or via postal mail, as described in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Your comment must reference Notice No. 211 and must be submitted or postmarked by the closing date shown in the DATES section of this document. You may upload or include attachments with your comment. You also may submit a comment requesting a public hearing on this proposal. The TTB Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing. If TTB schedules a public hearing, it will publish a notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing in the Federal Register .

All submitted comments and attachments are part of the rulemaking record and are subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider confidential or that is inappropriate for disclosure.

TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this document, its supporting materials, and any comments TTB receives about this proposal within the related Regulations.gov docket. In general, TTB will post comments as submitted, and it will not redact any identifying or contact information from the body of a comment or attachment.

Please contact TTB's Regulations and Rulings division by email using the web form available at https://www.ttb.gov/contact-rrd, or by telephone at 202-453-2265, if you have any questions regarding comments on this proposal or to request copies of this document, its supporting materials, or the comments received in response.

TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. TTB is proposing to amend its wine labeling and advertising regulations to remove an existing regulatory prohibition against statements which indicate that a wine contains distilled spirits. This proposed deregulatory action will allow wine makers and importers to provide additional information to consumers about their wines, while still providing consumers with adequate and non-misleading information as to the identity and quality of the products they purchase. The proposed amendments merely provide optional, additional flexibility in wine labeling and advertising decisions. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.

Jennifer Berry of the Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, drafted this document.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend 27 CFR, chapter I, part 4 as set forth below:

The revisions reads as follows:

On January 1, 2021, the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Pub. L. 116-283) (Authorization Act) was enacted. Section 8343 (134 Stat. 4710) calls for the Coast Guard to conduct a two-year pilot program to establish and implement a process to establish safety zones to address special activities in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 1 These special activities include space activities  2 carried out by United States (U.S.) citizens. Terms used to describe space activities, including launch, reentry site, and reentry vehicle, are defined in 51 U.S.C. 50902, and in this document.

The Coast Guard has long monitored space activities impacting the maritime domain and taken actions to ensure the safety of vessels and the public as needed during space launch  3 operations. In conducting this activity, the Coast Guard engages with other government agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and private space operators, including Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX). This engagement is necessary to ensure statutory and regulatory obligations are met to ensure the safety of launch operations and waterway users.

During this engagement, the Coast Guard was informed of space reentry vehicles and recovery operations in the U.S. EEZ. Section 50902 of 51 U.S.C. defines “reentry vehicle” as a vehicle designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth, or a reusable launch vehicle designed to return from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth, substantially intact. SpaceX, a U.S. company, has identified five reentry sites  4 within the U.S. EEZ of the Coast Guard District Seven area of responsibility (AOR) expected to be used for the splashdown  5 and recovery of reentry vehicles. All of these sites are off the coast of Florida (FL)—three are located in the Atlantic Ocean and two are located in the Gulf of Mexico.

On April 20, 2022, we published a temporary final rule in the Federal Register (87 FR 23441) for two anticipated reentry vehicle recovery missions within the Coast Guard District Seven AOR offshore of Jacksonville, Daytona, Cape Canaveral, Tampa, and Tallahassee, FL, from April 17, 2022, through May 15, 2022. Based on the date the Coast Guard was informed of the reentry, and the immediate need to establish the safety zone, the Coast Guard did not have sufficient time to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for that rule.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the protection of vessels and waterway users in the U.S. EEZ from the potential hazards created by reentry vehicle splashdowns and recovery operations, and the safe recovery of reentry vehicles and personnel involved in reentry services. 6 The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority of section 8343 of the Authorization Act.

The Coast Guard is proposing to establish five temporary safety zones in the U.S. EEZ for the safe reentry vehicle splashdown and recovery of reentry vehicles launched by SpaceX in support of NASA missions through the remainder of 2022.

The proposed temporary safety zones are located within the Coast Guard District Seven AOR offshore of Jacksonville, Daytona, and Cape Canaveral, FL, in the Atlantic Ocean, and Tampa and Tallahassee, FL, in the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed rule would prohibit U.S.-flagged vessels from entering any of the safety zones unless authorized by the District Commander of the Seventh Coast Guard District or a designated representative. Because the safety zones are within the U.S. EEZ, only U.S.-flagged vessels would be subject to enforcement. However, all foreign-flagged vessels would be encouraged to remain outside the safety zones.

Three of the five proposed temporary safety zones are located off the coast of FL in the Atlantic Ocean in the following areas: (1) Approximately 65 nautical miles (NM) northeast from Jacksonville; (2) 29 NM northeast from Daytona; and (3) 17 NM east from Port Canaveral. The remaining two proposed temporary safety zones are located off the coast of FL in the Gulf of Mexico in the following areas: (1) Approximately 58 NM northwest from Tampa Bay; and (2) 43 NM south from Tallahassee. The Jacksonville, Daytona, Cape Canaveral, and Tampa safety zones have an approximate area of 256 square miles, and are diamond shaped with the top point of the diamond pointing to the North. The Tallahassee safety zone is approximately 59 square miles in size and is triangular in shape. The Tallahassee safety zone, as provided by NASA and SpaceX, is the same size and shape as the other four safety zones; however, only a portion of the safety zone is within the jurisdiction of the Seventh Coast Guard District, so only the 59 square miles is included in this proposed rule. The remaining portion of the safety zone falls within the Coast Guard District Eight AOR.

The coordinates for the safety zones are based on the furthest north, east, south, and west points of the reentry vehicles splashdown and are determined from data and modeling by SpaceX and NASA. The coordinates take into account the trajectories of the reentry vehicles coming out of orbit, the potential risk to the public, and the proximity to medical facilities that meet NASA requirements. The specific coordinates for the five temporary safety zones are presented in the regulatory text at the end of this document.

To the extent feasible, the District Commander or a designated representative would inform the public of the activation of the five temporary safety zones by Notice of Enforcement (NOE) published in the Federal Register at least two days before the reentry vehicle splashdown. The NOE would identify the approximate date(s) during which a reentry vehicle splashdown and recovery operations would occur.

To the extent possible, twenty-four hours before a reentry vehicle splashdown and recovery operations, the District Commander or designated representative would inform the public that only one of the five safety zones would remain activated (subject to enforcement) until announced by Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) on VHF-FM channel 16, and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB) (as appropriate) that the safety zone is no longer subject to enforcement. The specific temporary safety zone to be enforced would be based on varying mission and environmental factors, including atmospheric conditions, sea state, weather, and orbital calculations.

The MSIB would include the geographic coordinates of the activated safety zone, a map identifying the location of the activated safety zone, and information related to potential hazards associated with a reentry vehicle splashdown and recovery operations associated with space activities, including marine environmental and public health hazards, such the release of hydrazine and other potential oil or hazardous substances.

When the safety zone is activated, the District Commander or a designated representative would be able to restrict U.S.-flagged vessel movement including but not limited to transiting, anchoring, or mooring within the safety zone to protect vessels from hazards associated with space activities. The activated safety zone would ensure the protection of vessels and waterway users from the potential hazards created by reentry vehicle splashdowns and recovery operations. This includes protection during the recovery of a reentry vehicle, and the protection of personnel involved in reentry services and space support vessels. 7

After a reentry vehicle splashdown, the District Commander or a designated representative would grant general permission to come no closer than 3 NM within the activated safety zone from any reentry vehicle or space support vessel engaged in the recovery operations. The recovery operations are expected to last approximately one hour. That should allow for sufficient time to let any potential toxic materials clear the reentry vehicle, recovery of the reentry vehicle by the space support vessel, and address any potential medical evacuations for any personnel involved in reentry services that were onboard the reentry vehicle.

Once a reentry vehicle and any personnel involved in reentry services are removed from the water and secured onboard a space support vessel, the District Commander or designated representative would issue a BNM on VHF-FM channel 16 announcing the activated safety zone is no longer subject to enforcement. A photograph of a reentry vehicle and space support vessel expected to use the reentry sites are available in the docket.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and scope of the temporary safety zones. The temporary safety zones are limited in size and location to only those areas where reentry vehicles splashdown and recovery operations occur. The safety zones are limited in scope, as vessel traffic would be able to safely transit around the activated safety zone which will only impact a small part of the U.S. EEZ within the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. The proposed rule involves the establishment of five temporary safety zones which would be activated two days before a reentry vehicle splashdown and recovery operations. Twenty-four hours before a reentry vehicle splashdown, one of the five temporary safety zones would remain active. After a reentry vehicle splashdown, general permission would be granted to come no closer than 3 NM within the activated safety zone. There is a danger associated with fumes from the reentry vehicle after it has splashed down. Once a reentry vehicle and any personnel involved in reentry services are removed from the water and secured onboard a space support vessel, the activated safety zone would no longer be subject to enforcement. The activated safety zone would ensure the protection of vessels and waterway users from the potential hazards created by a reentry vehicle splashdown and recovery operations and the recovery of a reentry vehicle, personnel involved in reentry services, and space support vessel.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The safety zones are only expected to last a few hours from reentry vehicle splashdown to recovery. Vessels will be able to transit around the activated safety zone location during these recoveries. We do not anticipate any significant economic impact resulting from activation of the safety zones.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity, and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of five temporary safety zones which would be activated two days before a reentry vehicle splashdown and recovery operations. Twenty-four hours before a reentry vehicle splashdown, one of the five temporary safety zones would remain active. After a reentry vehicle splashdown, general permission would be granted to come no closer than 3 NM within the activated safety zone. Once a reentry vehicle and any personnel involved in reentry services are removed from the water and secured onboard a space support vessel, the activated safety zone would no longer be subject to enforcement. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0289 in the search box and click “Search.” Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate instructions.

Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.

Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

In the proposed rule that was published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2022, the Postal Service proposed to implement a two-inch maximum of selvage on the length and the width of a parcel prepared in soft packaging and to provide a clarification defining how to measure parcels prepared in soft packaging to generally determine the length, width, and height of the mailpiece.

In consideration of concerns expressed by members of the mailing community during the proposed rule comment period, the Postal Service has elected to withdraw the proposed rule.

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

On February 22, 2013, EPA issued a Federal Register proposed rulemaking action outlining EPA's policy at the time with respect to SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. EPA analyzed specific SSM SIP provisions and explained how each one either did or did not comply with the CAA with regard to excess emission events. 1 For each SIP provision that the EPA determined to be inconsistent with the CAA, the EPA proposed to find that the existing SIP provision was substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5). On September 17, 2014, EPA issued a document supplementing and revising what the Agency had previously proposed on February 22, 2013, in light of a D.C. Circuit decision that determined the CAA precludes authority of the EPA to create affirmative defense provisions. 2 EPA outlined its updated policy that affirmative defense SIP provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements. EPA proposed in the supplemental proposal document to apply its revised interpretation of the Act to specific affirmative defense SIP provisions and proposed SIP calls for those provisions where appropriate (79 FR 55920, September 17, 2014).

On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,” (80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015), hereafter referred to as the “2015 SSM SIP Action.” The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified, restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemption and affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions in 36 states were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and issued a SIP call to those states to submit SIP revisions to address the inadequacies. EPA established an 18-month deadline by which the affected states had to submit such SIP revisions. States were required to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in response to the SIP calls by November 22, 2016. Included was a SIP call to Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico, and the detailed rationale for the issuance of that SIP call can be found in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and the preceding proposed actions. The EPA is not reopening the 2015 SSM SIP Action here.

EPA issued a Memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be viewed as consistent with CAA requirements. 3 Importantly, the 2020 Memorandum stated that it “did not alter in any way the determinations made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific state SIP provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements of the Act.” Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no direct impact on the SIP call issued to Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico in 2015. The 2020 Memorandum did, however, indicate the EPA's intent at the time to review SIP calls that were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to determine whether the EPA should maintain, modify, or withdraw particular SIP calls through future agency actions.

On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020 Memorandum and announced the EPA's return to the policy articulated in the 2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum). 4 As articulated in the 2021 Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative defense provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements and, therefore, generally are not approvable if contained in a SIP submission. This policy approach is intended to ensure that all communities and populations, including minority, low-income and indigenous populations overburdened by air pollution, receive the full health and environmental protections provided by the CAA. 5 The 2021 Memorandum also retracted the prior statement from the 2020 Memorandum of EPA's plans to review and potentially modify or withdraw particular SIP calls. That statement no longer reflects EPA's intent. EPA intends to implement the principles laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP Action as the agency takes action on SIP submissions, including this SIP submittal provided in response to the 2015 SIP call.

New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC), Title 20 Environmental Protection, Chapter 11 Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Board, Part 49 Excess Emissions (20.11.49 NMAC) (hereinafter “Part 49”) was approved by the EPA into the New Mexico SIP on February 4, 2010, and became federally effective on April 5, 2010.

As a part of the EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action, the EPA made a finding that certain provisions in Part 49—namely, 20.11.49.16.A NMAC, 20.11.49.16.B NMAC, and 20.11.49.16.C NMAC of the New Mexico SIP—are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements, and thus issued a SIP call with respect to these provisions because these provisions provide for an affirmative defense. 6 Although not part of the finding in the 2015 SIP call, the EPA noted that removal of 20.11.49.16.A NMAC, 20.11.49.16.B NMAC and 20.11.49.16.C NMAC from the New Mexico SIP would render other sections of 20.11.49 NMAC of the New Mexico SIP superfluous and no longer operative. 7

In response to the EPA's June 12, 2015 SIP call, NMED (on behalf of the Air Board) requested by letter dated October 17, 2016, that the EPA approve the removal of 20.11.49 NMAC in its entirety from the New Mexico SIP, including the three provisions found by EPA's June 12, 2015 SIP call to be substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements. 8 The removal of 20.11.49 NMAC from the New Mexico SIP eliminates the provisions related to excess emissions, including the affirmative defense provisions identified in the June 12, 2015 SIP call. EPA believes that removal of 20.11.49 NMAC from the New Mexico SIP will not affect the adequacy of the remaining portions of the New Mexico SIP.

Although not part of the SIP submittal at issue in this proposed rulemaking, the Air Board amended Part 49 on September 14, 2016, to replace the affirmative defense provisions with “state-only” enforcement discretion provisions. EPA has reviewed the language of 20.11.49 NMAC, as amended, and notes that the enforcement discretion criteria apply only to the State's own enforcement personnel and not to the EPA or others. 9 Therefore, if finalized as proposed, the New Mexico SIP applicable to sources located in Albuquerque-Bernalillo County will not include specific provisions relating to excess emissions during SSM periods; however, Part 49, as amended, does provide “state-only” enforcement discretion provisions applicable to excess emissions by such sources and how violations related to excess emissions will be handled by state enforcement personnel.

The submittal also includes an analysis to demonstrate compliance with section 110(l) of the Act. 10 Elimination of the Part 49 provisions from the New Mexico SIP is not expected to lead to any emissions increase. Therefore, we do not believe the proposed revisions would interfere with attainment and reasonable further progress, or any applicable requirement of the CAA. Consequently, we are proposing to approve the removal of 20.11.49 NMAC Excess Emissions from the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County provisions of the New Mexico SIP.

The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County provisions of the New Mexico SIP submitted on October 17, 2016, in response to the EPA's national SIP call of June 12, 2015, concerning excess emissions during periods of SSM. More specifically, we are proposing to approve the removal of Part 49 Excess Emissions from the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County provisions of the New Mexico SIP. We are proposing to approve these revisions in accordance with section 110 of the Act. EPA is further proposing to determine that such SIP revision corrects the deficiency identified in the June 12, 2015 SIP call. EPA is not reopening the 2015 SSM SIP Action and is only taking comment on whether this proposed SIP revision is consistent with CAA requirements and whether it addresses the substantial inadequacy in the specific Albuquerque-Bernalillo County provisions identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”  11 EPA is providing additional analysis of environmental justice associated with this action for the purpose of providing information to the public.

EPA reviewed demographic data, which provides an assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living within Bernalillo County. 12 The EPA then compared the data to the national average for each of the demographic groups. 13 The results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for populations within Bernalillo County, the percent people of color (persons who reported their race as a category other than White alone (not Hispanic or Latino)) is significantly higher than the national average (61.2 percent versus 40 percent). Within people of color, the percent of the population that is Hispanic or Latino is higher than the national averages (50.3 percent versus 18.5 percent) and the percent of the population that is American Indian/Alaska Native is also higher than the national average (6.3 percent versus 1.3 percent). The percent of people living below the poverty level in Bernalillo County is higher than the national average (15.3 percent versus 11.4 percent). The percent of people over 25 with a high school diploma in Bernalillo County is similar to the national average (90 percent versus 88.5 percent), while the percent with a Bachelor's degree or higher is slightly higher than the national average (35.3 percent versus 32.9 percent).

Communities in close proximity to and/or downwind of industrial sources may be subject to disproportionate environmental impacts of excess emissions. Short- and/or long-term exposure to air pollution has been associated with a wide range of human health effects including increased respiratory symptoms, hospitalization for heart or lung diseases, and even premature death. Excess emissions during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions exceed applicable emission limitations and can be considerably higher than emissions under normal steady-state operations. As to all population groups within the Bernalillo County area, as explained below we believe that this proposed action will be beneficial and will tend to reduce impacts. As discussed earlier in this notice, this rulemaking, if finalized as proposed, would result in the removal of the provisions in the New Mexico SIP applicable to Bernalillo County that provide sources emitting pollutants in excess of otherwise allowable amounts with the opportunity to assert an affirmative defense to violations involving excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunctions. Removal of such impermissible affirmative defense provisions from the SIP is necessary to preserve the enforcement structure of the CAA, to preserve the jurisdiction of courts to adjudicate questions of liability and remedies in judicial enforcement actions and to preserve the potential for enforcement by the EPA and other parties under the citizen suit provision as an effective deterrent to violations. If finalized as proposed, this action is intended to ensure that all communities and populations across Bernalillo County and downwind areas, including people of color and low-income and indigenous populations overburdened by pollution, receive the full human health and environmental protection provided by the CAA through the removal of affirmative defense provisions that have interfered with the enforcement structure of the CAA by raising inappropriate impediments to enforcement by states, the EPA, or citizens. We therefore propose to determine that this rule, if finalized, will not have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on communities with environmental justice concerns.

In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by reference revisions to Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's regulations, as described in the Proposed Action section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

Under the 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 Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• 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 Act; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

On October 26, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.070 parts per million. 1 In accordance with section 107(d) of the CAA, the EPA must designate an area “nonattainment” if it is violating the NAAQS or if it is contributing to a violation of the NAAQS in a nearby area. In February 2018, Clark County submitted a recommendation based on 2015-2017 monitoring data, requesting that the Las Vegas Valley be designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 2 The EPA approved the request and designated the Las Vegas Valley in Clark County as a “Marginal” ozone nonattainment zone for the 2015 ozone NAAQS effective August 3, 2018. 3

Sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) of the CAA require states to develop and submit, as a SIP revision, “base year” emissions inventories for all areas designated as nonattainment for an ozone NAAQS. The EPA finalized the 2015 ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule (SRR) on December 6, 2018. 4 The SRR established implementation requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, including requirements for base year emissions inventories under CAA section 182(a)(1). The SRR for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart CC, and the emissions inventory requirements are codified at 40 CFR 51.1315.

An emissions inventory for ozone is an estimation of actual emissions of air pollutants that contribute to the formation of ozone in an area. Ozone is a gas that is formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ), referred to as ozone precursors, in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, an emissions inventory for ozone focuses on the emissions of VOC and NO X . VOC is emitted by many types of sources, including power plants, industrial sources, on-road and off-road mobile sources, smaller stationary sources collectively referred to as area sources, and biogenic sources. NO X is primarily emitted by combustion sources, both stationary and mobile.

Emissions inventories provide emissions data that inform a variety of air quality planning tasks, including the following: establishing baseline emissions levels, calculating emissions reduction targets needed to attain the NAAQS and to achieve reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment of an ozone standard, 5 determining emissions inputs for ozone air quality modeling analyses, and tracking emissions over time to determine progress toward achieving air quality and emissions reduction goals.

For the 2015 ozone NAAQS, states are required to submit ozone season day emissions estimates for an inventory calendar year to be consistent with the baseline year for RFP plans as required by 40 CFR 51.1310(b). 6 Under 40 CFR 51.1310(b), for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the RFP baseline year is the most recent calendar year for which a complete triennial inventory is required to be submitted to the EPA under 40 CFR 51 subpart A. 7 States may use an alternative base year emissions inventory provided that the year selected corresponds with the year of the effective date of designation as nonattainment for that NAAQS. Ozone season day emissions are defined in 40 CFR 51.1300(q) as “the average day's emissions for a typical ozone season work weekday.” Under the definition in 40 CFR 51.1300(q), states are required to select the months in the ozone season and the days in the work week to be represented. Based on the EPA's 2017 guidance on emissions inventory development, the selected ozone season should be representative of the conditions leading to nonattainment. 8

On October 15, 2020, the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) submitted a revision to the Nevada SIP titled, “Revision to the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS: Emissions Inventory and Emissions Statement Requirements” (“2020 Clark County EI”). 9 The 2020 Clark County EI includes a 2017 base year emissions inventory for the Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area, developed by the Clark County Department of Environment and Sustainability (CCDES), and supporting documentation regarding the development of the base year emissions inventory.

CCDES provided supplementary information (SI) to the 2020 Clark County EI addressing comments and questions raised by the EPA following receipt of CCDES's prior submittal on February 10, 2022, February 14, 2022, and on March 30, 2022. 10 Together these three supplementary exchanges are known as the “2020 Clark County SI.”

In this action, we are evaluating and proposing action on the 2020 Clark County EI and the 2020 Clark County SI that we will collectively refer to as the “2020 Clark County SIP Submittal.”

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(l) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.102 require states to provide reasonable notice and an opportunity for a public hearing prior to adoption of SIP revisions. Section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. Any plan that the EPA does not affirmatively determine to be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six months after the date of submittal. A finding of completeness does not approve the submittal as part of the SIP, nor does it indicate that the submittal is approvable. It does start a 12-month clock for the EPA to act on the SIP submittal (see CAA section 110(k)(2)).

The 2020 Clark County SIP Submittal includes documentation of the public review process CCDES followed prior to its submittal to the EPA as revisions to the SIP. Appendix B of the 2020 Clark County EI includes documentation of notices of opportunity for public hearing and comment on the SIP submittal. CCDES posted these notices on CCDES Facebook and Twitter pages, sent them by email to interested parties, and posted them on CCDES and Clark County websites. Included in Appendix B of the 2020 Clark County EI are agendas and meeting summaries from two Board of Commissioners meetings, setting and conducting the public hearing. Public comment reports included in Appendix B indicate that CCDES received no comments during the 30-day public review period.

The 2020 Clark County SIP Submittal addresses the emissions inventory requirement in CAA section 182(a)(1). The submittal provides documentation of a 2017 base year inventory of emissions of NO X and VOCs. The 2017 base year emissions inventory was the most recent triennial emissions inventory in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) at the time the emissions inventories were prepared for the Clark County area.

The emissions inventory submittal includes emissions estimates for the following source categories: point sources, nonpoint sources, onroad mobile sources, nonroad mobile sources, commercial and federal aviation, and biogenic sources. Point sources are large, stationary ( i.e., non-mobile) sources of emissions that release pollutants. Nonpoint sources, also referred to as “area” sources, are the sources of air pollutants that fall below point source reporting levels or are too small or too numerous to be identified individually, such as small-scale industrial or residential operations that use emission-generating materials or processes. Nonroad mobile sources are not certified for highway use and include equipment that can either move under their own power or can be moved from site to site. 11 Onroad mobile sources are motor vehicles traveling on local highways and roads. Biogenic sources emit pollutants produced by natural sources including vegetation and soils. Commercial and federal aviation consists of emissions from aircraft and airport ground support equipment for commercially run facilities and federally owned facilities respectively.

CCDES employed a combination of top-down estimation techniques ( i.e., allocation of regional emissions estimates to a smaller, defined geographic area) and bottom-up estimation techniques ( i.e., development of source or source category emissions estimates using emissions factors, models, etc.) to develop the emissions inventories in their SIP submittal.

The emissions inventory included in the 2020 Clark County SIP Submittal was developed by CCDES. The Clark County ozone nonattainment area for the 2015 NAAQS consists of Hydrographic Area 212, also referred to by CCDES as the Las Vegas Valley. 12 CCDES selected the month of July to estimate ozone season day emissions of NO X and VOC from sources in the Las Vegas Valley. 13

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0482, at https://www.regulations.gov . Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov . The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets .

The EPA is proposing to approve the rescission of Missouri's General Conformity Rule, 10 CSR 10-6.300 from Missouri's SIP. General Conformity ensures actions taken by federal agencies, such as airport construction, do not interfere with a state's plans to attain and maintain national standards for air quality. After rescission of the state's General Conformity Rule, federal agency actions will be subject to the Federal General Conformity Rule.

The purpose of the General Conformity rule is to ensure that federal activities do not cause or contribute to new violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), federal actions do not worsen existing violations of the NAAQS, and attainment of the NAAQS is not delayed. General Conformity covers most aspects of federally funded or approved actions not covered by the Transportation Conformity program. In November 1993, the EPA promulgated two sets of regulations to implement section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). First, on November 24, 1993, the EPA promulgated the Transportation Conformity regulations, which apply to highways and mass transit. These regulations establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether transportation plans, programs, and projects funded under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act conform with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) (58 FR 62188). Then, on November 30, 1993, the EPA promulgated a second set of regulations, known as the General Conformity regulations, which apply to all other federal actions. These regulations ensured that other federal actions also conformed to the SIPs (58 FR 63214).

General Conformity is based on evaluating the annual net increase in emissions caused by the proposed federal activity. The regulations require a federal agency proposing certain general federal activities to ensure that any increase in emissions of harmful air pollutants conform to the purpose of the applicable implementation plan. This includes projecting estimates of the direct and indirect emissions that are likely to occur.

General Conformity covers a wide variety of federal activities. A federal activity is generally an action that requires either federal funding and/or federal approval. Even if a project is not federally-funded, there may be federal approvals such as permits that are needed.

The General Conformity Regulations do not apply to every area. Rather, the requirements only apply in nonattainment areas and attainment areas with maintenance plans, maintenance areas. A nonattainment area is an area designated by the EPA as not meeting a NAAQS. A maintenance area is an area that was once designated as nonattainment but has been redesignated by the EPA to attainment based on meeting the NAAQS and having an approved plan to maintain the NAAQS. The EPA, in partnership with the states or tribes, is responsible for the designation of areas as nonattainment and redesignating them once they achieve the NAAQS.

For more information on General Conformity, please visit www.epa.gov/general-conformity.

Missouri's General Conformity Rule, 10 CSR 10-6.300, titled “Conformity of General Federal Actions to State Implementation Plans”, was incorporated into the SIP consistent with section 176(c) of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)), and regulations located in 40 CFR part 93, subpart B, that directed states to include in their SIPs provisions requiring General Conformity of federal actions to the applicable implementation plan. In 2005, Congress passed the “Safe, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU). Section 6011 of SAFETEA-LU amended section 176(c) of the CAA to remove the requirement for states to adopt a General Conformity rule into the SIP. In turn, EPA amended the federal General Conformity rule at 40 CFR part 51, subpart W, to make state adoption of a General Conformity rule into the SIP optional rather than mandatory (75 FR 17258). 10 CSR 10-6.300 duplicates federal regulations. After rescission of the state's General Conformity Rule, federal agency actions will be subject to the Federal General Conformity Rule.

CAA section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l), states that the Administrator cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement. The federal General Conformity rule contains the same requirements as the state's General Conformity rule. Therefore, the same requirements will apply after the state's rule is rescinded and there will be no associated emissions increase or adverse impact to air quality. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that this change will not interfere with: any area's ability to maintain any NAAQS, making reasonable progress towards natural visibility in Missouri's Class I areas nor any Class I area in another state Missouri impacts, or any other applicable requirement.

The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from August 16, 2021 to October 7, 2021 and received no comment. In addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of Missouri on April 15, 2021, rescinding the State General Conformity Rule, 10 CSR 10-6.300. EPA is proposing to determine that this revision would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other CAA requirement because the same requirements exist in federal law. We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

This action proposes to approve the rescission of the state's General Conformity rule. The state's rule duplicates the federal General Conformity rule. Once approved all federal actions that would have been subject to the state rule will be subject to the same requirements in the federal rule. For this reason, this proposed action will not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples.

In this document, the EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. As described in Section II of this preamble and set forth below in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52, the EPA is proposing to remove 10 CSR 10-6.300 of the EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations from the Missouri State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• 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 the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

• The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule are those involved with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels, including gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and biogas. Potentially affected categories include:

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

Please note that EPA is deviating from its typical approach because the President has declared a national emergency. Because of current CDC recommendations, as well as state and local orders for social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, EPA cannot hold in-person public meetings at this time.

Information on how to register for the hearing can be found at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/proposed-alternative-rin-retirement-schedule-small-refineries. The last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be June 21, 2022.

Each commenter will have 3 minutes to provide oral testimony. EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing.

Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/proposed-alternative-rin-retirement-schedule-small-refineries. While EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above, please monitor the website or contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to determine if there are any updates. EPA does not intend to publish a document in the Federal Register announcing updates.

If you require the services of a translator or special accommodations such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing and describe your needs by June 21, 2022. EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advance notice.

The RFS program sets annual, nationally applicable volume targets for renewable fuel. EPA translates those volume targets into compliance obligations that obligated parties must meet each year. EPA has designated refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel fuel used as transportation fuel to be those obligated parties. 1 Small refineries, a subset of refiners, are defined by the Clean Air Act (CAA or “the Act”) as “refiner[ies] for which the average aggregate daily crude oil throughput for a calendar year . . . does not exceed 75,000 barrels.”  2 At the start of the RFS program, Congress initially granted all eligible small refineries a temporary exemption from the obligations of the RFS program until 2011. 3 Under EPA's regulations, small refineries that were producing either “gasoline” under RFS1  4 or “transportation fuel” under RFS2  5 were required to notify EPA that they qualified for the temporary exemption by submitting verification letters stating their average crude oil throughput rate during the applicable qualification period. 6 The CAA provides that a small refinery may at any time petition EPA for an extension of the exemption from the obligations of the RFS program for the reason of disproportionate economic hardship (DEH). 7 In evaluating such petitions, the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, will consider the findings of a Department of Energy (DOE) study and other economic factors. 8

On December 7, 2021, EPA proposed to deny 65 pending SRE petitions for the 2016-2021 compliance years  9 and took public comment via a Federal Register Notice. 10 That proposal included proposed changes to EPA's interpretation of the SRE provisions in the CAA that were informed by the holdings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Renewable Fuels Association et al. v. EPA ( RFA )  11 and EPA's long-held findings regarding RFS compliance costs being passed through ultimately to wholesale purchasers (generally referred to as RIN cost passthrough). Consistent with that proposal, on April 7, 2022, EPA announced the April 2022 SRE Denial, 12 which denied 36 previously-decided SRE petitions for the 2018 compliance year that had been remanded to EPA for reconsideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 13 Then, on June 3, 2022, EPA announced the June 2022 SRE Denial, 14 which denied 69 SRE petitions for the 2016-2021 compliance years that were still pending. 15

We understand that some small refineries that recently received denial decisions may not be prepared to comply with their renewable volume obligations (RVOs or “RFS obligations”) for the 2020 compliance year by the applicable compliance deadlines, likely because they received SREs in recent years and assumed they would continue. Additionally, the compliance deadlines have been compressed  16 and some small refineries have stated that they have been unable to acquire the RINs they need to comply with their RFS obligations. 17 For these reasons, EPA believes it is appropriate to allow small refineries to carryforward their 2019 RIN deficits into the 2020 compliance year (as they are already able to do pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1427(b)), then elect to use the alternative RIN retirement schedule proposed today to meet their 2020 RFS obligations. This will give the small refineries additional time and open a broader range of RIN vintages to acquire and retire the RINs needed to demonstrate compliance for the 2020 compliance year.

For the reasons provided herein, we are proposing to make an alternative RIN retirement schedule available to small refineries for the 2020 compliance year to facilitate their transition into full compliance with the RFS program. This proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule would decrease the number of RINs that small refineries must acquire in the near term, extend the time period over which small refineries can plan and implement their RIN transactions, and allow the use of RINs generated in future compliance years, thereby reducing the immediate financial impacts on small refineries, as well as the impacts on the RIN market and the RFS program as a whole. While we are here proposing specific dates for the alternative RIN retirement schedule, these proposed dates presume that the annual RFS compliance deadlines will be established according to the structure in 40 CFR 80.1451(f)(1)(i)(B). 18 However, the final rule that established those regulations is currently the subject of litigation. 19 Thus, the reporting deadlines upon which the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule is based may again become uncertain.

We are proposing to allow any refinery that meets the definition of “small refinery”  20 for the 2020 compliance year to use this alternative RIN retirement schedule, regardless of whether it submitted an SRE petition for 2020 or recently received an SRE denial. We are doing so because almost all small refineries submitted an SRE petition for 2020 that was denied in the June 2022 SRE Denial. We further believe that the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule should be provided to all small refineries because the previous uncertainty surrounding the availability of SREs potentially affected all small refineries, which “may at any time petition” for an SRE. 21

We believe that it is appropriate to propose this alternative RIN retirement schedule only for small refineries for their 2020 RFS obligations because it responds to the unique circumstances affecting small refineries at this time. First, the June 2022 SRE Denial only affects the RFS obligations of small refineries. Second, the uncertainty regarding how EPA would decide the SRE petitions, created by the protracted litigation and the opinions in RFA and HollyFrontier, impacted only small refineries' compliance obligations. Third, some small refineries have stated that they have not been acquiring RINs ratably while producing transportation fuels that incur an RFS obligation in anticipation of EPA granting their SRE petitions, a result that did not manifest. 22 Currently, the available RINs small refineries need for compliance with their 2020 RVOs are being held in large part by other obligated parties that likely intend to use these RINs for compliance with their own RFS obligations, and those parties may not be willing to sell them. 23 For these reasons, many small refineries may not be prepared to comply by the 2020 compliance deadline. Therefore, we are proposing to provide small refineries with more time to acquire RINs and allow the use of a broader range of RIN vintages through the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule, which we believe would help resolve some of the obstacles small refineries may currently be facing.

The proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule is an extended period over which small refineries must acquire and retire RINs to demonstrate compliance with their 2020 RFS obligations. We are proposing a RIN retirement schedule that includes five quarterly RIN retirement deadlines that extend into the 2024 calendar year, thereby allowing small refineries to potentially use 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 RINs to satisfy a portion of their 2020 RVOs. We are proposing this schedule to allow over 18 months between the June 2022 SRE Denial and the final 2020 RVO quarterly RIN retirement deadline of February 1, 2024, for small refineries to satisfy, in full, their 2020 RVOs. Table II.1 provides the proposed RIN retirement schedule and RIN vintages that can be used for each quarterly RIN retirement deadline, along with illustrative annual compliance reporting deadlines:

We are proposing these specific RIN retirement deadlines so that they would not overlap with other RFS compliance reporting deadlines. 24 We believe this approach would allow EPA staff to implement and oversee the RIN retirements more effectively and mitigate the potential for confusion on the part of participating small refineries that would have overlapping compliance reporting requirements. We are proposing specific dates for these deadlines—as opposed to tying them to the effective date of this or another RFS-related action—to provide greater certainty regarding the RIN retirement deadlines under the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule. 25

We are proposing the five quarterly RIN retirement deadlines because this would allow small refineries additional time to acquire RINs, as well as provide small refineries with access to additional later RIN vintages, as any valid RIN at the time of retirement could be used to demonstrate compliance. In this way, the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule strikes a balance between easing the compliance burden for small refineries while not indefinitely postponing their compliance demonstrations. The extended RIN retirement schedule and expanded RIN retirement flexibility will help individual small refineries fully comply, and in so doing will strengthen the entire RFS program following the recent rulemaking and SRE petition decision delays.

Under the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule, a small refinery would be obligated to retire at least 20 percent of its 2020 RVOs by the first quarterly RIN retirement deadline, at least 40 percent by the second quarterly RIN retirement deadline, and so on, as laid out in Table II.1 above, such that the full 2020 RVOs must be met on the final RIN retirement deadline of February 1, 2024. For example, under this proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule, if a small refinery retired RINs sufficient to meet 30 percent of its 2020 RVOs by the 2020 compliance deadline of December 1, 2022, then it would not be obligated to retire additional RINs towards its 2020 RVOs until the second quarterly RIN retirement deadline ( i.e., May 1, 2023), at which time it would be obligated to retire RINs equal to at least 40 percent of its 2020 RVOs.

We are also proposing to allow small refineries to use any valid RINs at the time of retirement for compliance, including RIN vintages after 2020 ( i.e., 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 RINs) until such RIN vintages expire ( e.g., 2021 RINs expire after the 2022 compliance deadline). This approach would allow small refineries access to additional RINs while maintaining compliance with our regulations regarding the validity and expiration of RINs. 26 Given the relatively small proportion of the overall demand for RINs that is represented by all small refineries ( i.e., less than 10 percent of the total RVO for any given year) and that there is likely only a limited number of small refineries that would utilize the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule, we do not anticipate that this action will have any significant impact on the overall RIN market in future years.

We are proposing to require small refineries to notify EPA of their intent to use the alternative RIN retirement schedule on or before the 2020 compliance deadline. This notice would inform EPA as to which small refineries intend to use the alternative RIN retirement schedule and would allow EPA to monitor and track the progress of the small refineries towards full compliance with their 2020 RVOs. We are proposing to require a small refinery to send us a letter signed by the responsible corporate officer expressing their intent to comply using the alternative RIN retirement schedule. We intend to acknowledge receipt of the small refinery's notification of their intent to comply using the alternative RIN retirement schedule.

Under this proposal, we would still require that participating small refineries submit a 2020 annual compliance report by the 2020 compliance deadline. The 2020 annual compliance report would be necessary to establish a small refinery's 2020 RVOs, which would be used by the small refinery to determine minimum RIN retirements for each installment under the alternative RIN retirement schedule, and for EPA to verify that the small refinery is meeting its quarterly RIN retirement obligations.

We are also proposing that, as a condition to use the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule, the obligated party that owns/operates the small refinery must, on its annual RFS compliance report, provide the individual-small refinery RVO for the 2020 compliance year ( i.e., comply on a refinery-basis for that small refinery). Under the RFS program, obligated parties must either comply with their RVOs on an individual-refinery basis or an aggregated basis ( i.e., they combine the RVOs from all of their refineries). If an obligated party owns other refineries with RVOs in addition to the small refinery and complies on an aggregated basis, it would be unclear what portion of the aggregated RVOs apply to only the small refinery and whether the obligated party has met the RIN retirement quotas under the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule. Therefore, as a condition for a small refinery to use the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule, we are proposing that it must demonstrate compliance on an individual basis so that RINs can be retired for the specific small refinery's RVOs. Similarly, we are proposing that if an obligated party carries forward a RIN deficit from 2019 into 2020, that obligated party would need to comply on an individual-refinery basis for the 2019 compliance year as well. This condition would allow EPA to track the small refinery's progress towards compliance with its 2020 obligations more effectively, and would not unduly hinder obligated parties in making their compliance demonstrations.

We are not proposing any changes to the regulatory provisions governing the use of cellulosic waiver credits (CWCs). The regulations currently state that CWCs “may only be used for an obligated party's current-year cellulosic biofuel RVO and not towards any prior year deficit cellulosic biofuel volume obligations.”  27 We believe this approach is appropriate because, in recent years, the use of CWCs has decreased as obligated parties have largely been complying with their cellulosic RVO through RIN retirements. 28 Accordingly, small refineries wishing to use CWCs for their 2020 cellulosic biofuel RVO must purchase and use CWCs by the 2020 compliance deadline. 29 Additionally, allowing small refineries to use CWCs to meet their cellulosic biofuel RVO through the alternative RIN retirement schedule ( i.e., after the 2020 compliance deadline) would introduce logistical challenges for EPA and small refineries that would complicate the implementation of the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule. Moreover, it is unlikely that modifications to the CWC regulations would provide small refineries with a meaningful benefit in complying with their RFS obligations, when viewed in light of what we have already proposed in this alternative RIN retirement schedule.

We are proposing that a participating small refinery would not be permitted to carry forward a RIN deficit from 2021 or a subsequent year into the following compliance year unless it had fully complied with its 2020 RFS obligations. We are proposing this condition as a prerequisite to carrying forward a future RIN deficit because we want to prevent the scenario in which a small refinery continuously accrues annual RIN deficits, placing it in the position where it is no longer capable of complying with its accrued RFS obligations. The proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule is intended to support small refineries in achieving and maintaining full compliance with their RFS obligations and get them on track for future compliance, not to permit them to indefinitely delay their compliance demonstrations.

We note that all of the already existing regulatory flexibilities for small refineries—including the ability to satisfy up to 20 percent of their 2019 RVOs using 2018 carryover RINs under 40 CFR 80.1427(a)(5) and the ability to carry forward a RIN deficit from 2019 to 2020 if they did not carry forward a RIN deficit from 2018 under 40 CFR 80.1427(b)—would continue to be available under the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule. It should also be noted that other current RFS regulations will also remain in effect, including that small refineries that use 2018 RINs to meet up to 20 percent of their 2019 RVOs must do so by the 2019 compliance deadline because 2018 RINs expire after the 2019 compliance deadline and become invalid. 30 Similarly, any 2019 RINs that a small refinery uses to satisfy up to 20 percent of its 2020 RVOs must be retired for compliance by the 2020 compliance deadline because 2019 RINs expire after the 2020 annual compliance deadline and become invalid. 31 We are not proposing to modify these regulations and any comments suggesting that EPA make changes to these provisions will be considered beyond the scope of this action.

As described above, participating small refineries would still be able to use any valid RINs at the time of retirement under the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule. We believe that this proposed approach would encourage participating small refineries to retire a maximum number of 2019 RINs for their 2020 RVOs while providing flexibility for small refineries to obtain and retire valid RINs for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 to satisfy their 2020 RVOs.

To help implement the alternative RIN retirement schedule for participating small refineries, we intend to assist parties with procedures for submitting forms that they would use. For example, we plan to leverage existing forms and procedures for the submission of reports and transactions under our e-reporting systems. Due to the limited number of small refineries, we plan to work individually with participating small refineries. To further help communicate this alternative RIN retirement schedule for small refineries, we also intend to post the deadlines for the final alternative RIN retirement schedule on our website. 32

We are requesting comment on all aspects of the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule for small refineries as described and defined in this notice. For example, we seek comment on the appropriate number and size of the RIN retirement installments included in the schedule ( e.g., whether five quarterly installments are too many or too few or whether we should require a different percentage of RIN retirements at each deadline). We also seek comment on the proposed condition that participating small refineries may not carry forward a RIN deficit for future years until their 2020 RVOs have been fully satisfied.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.

The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2718.01. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.

The information to be collected is necessary to implement the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule for small refineries. As part of this proposal, a participating small refinery would submit a notification to EPA indicating that the small refinery would use the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule and maintain records related to the determination and retirement of RINs under the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule. We estimate that 13 small refineries would use the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule.

Respondents/affected entities: small refineries.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory in order to receive compliance flexibility under section 80.1444 of this proposed rule.

Estimated number of respondents: 39. 33

Frequency of response: Notification letters would typically be a one-time response. Recordkeeping is performed on occasion, and as needed.

Total estimated burden: 19 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $1,710, all of which is labor costs, and which includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function. OMB must receive comments no later than August 12, 2022.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this proposed rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the agency is certifying that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the proposed rule has no net burden on the small entities subject to the proposed rule. This action reduces burden to small refineries by creating an alternative RIN retirement schedule for their 2020 RVOs. As small refineries have no obligation to use the proposed alternative RIN retirement schedule, there is no additional cost to small refineries if they simply comply with the existing regulatory schedule. We do not anticipate that there will be any costs associated with these changes and that the alternative RIN retirement schedule may reduce costs. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments. Requirements for the private sector do not exceed $100 million in any one year.

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule only affects RFS obligated parties. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This action proposes to provide small refineries with an alternative RIN retirement schedule to meet their 2020 RVOs. There are no additional costs for sources in the energy supply, distribution, or use sectors.

This action does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does establish an environmental health or safety standard. This action addresses the 2020 compliance deadline for small refineries only and does not impact the RFS standards themselves.

Statutory authority for this action comes from section 211( o ) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545( o ).

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

NHTSA received a petition from Mosler on June 19, 2007, seeking exemption from the passenger automobile fuel economy standards for model years (MYs) 2008 through 2010. In its petition, Mosler stated that it manufactured 15 vehicles in 2004. Mosler estimated that it would produce 40 vehicles in 2008, 50 vehicles in 2009, and 60 vehicles in 2010. NHTSA published a proposed decision establishing an alternative standard for Mosler for MYs 2008-2010 at 73 FR 34242 (June 17, 2008). NHTSA has since confirmed that Mosler did not produce any vehicles for those model years. Therefore, NHTSA is withdrawing the June 17, 2008 proposed grant of exemption and establishment of alternative standards, because granting the exemption would serve no useful purpose.