Federal Register Vol. 80, No.108,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 108 (June 5, 2015)

Page Range31971-32265
FR Document

80_FR_108
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 32181 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 32183 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science BoardPDF
80 FR 32192 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 32125 - Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act; Regular MeetingPDF
80 FR 32196 - Noise Compatibility Program Notice; Lafayette Regional Airport; Lafayette, LouisianaPDF
80 FR 32089 - Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative ReviewPDF
80 FR 32183 - Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences; Fiscal Year 2014; Dissemination of InformationPDF
80 FR 31988 - IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 32126 - Disability Advisory Committee; Announcement of Next MeetingPDF
80 FR 32034 - Aluminum Sulfate; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
80 FR 32204 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Bank Appeals Follow-Up QuestionnairePDF
80 FR 32029 - n-Butyl benzoate; Exemptions From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
80 FR 32168 - Announcement of Requirements and Registration for “Up For A Challenge (U4C)-Stimulating Innovation in Breast Cancer Genetic Epidemiology”PDF
80 FR 32193 - Provision of Certain Temporary and Limited Sanctions Relief in Order To Implement the Joint Plan of Action of November 24, 2013, Between the P5+1 and the Islamic Republic of Iran, as Extended Through June 30, 2015PDF
80 FR 32085 - Authorization of Production Activity, Foreign-Trade Zone 134, Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC, (Passenger Motor Vehicles), Chattanooga, TennesseePDF
80 FR 32085 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 122-Corpus Christi, Texas, Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Voestalpine Texas, LLC, (Hot Briquetted Iron), Portland, TexasPDF
80 FR 32085 - Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 32184 - Louisiana Energy Services, URENCO USA FacilityPDF
80 FR 32087 - Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013PDF
80 FR 32116 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; See Item Specific ICR Titles Provided in the Text; See the Item Specific Docket Numbers Provided in the TextPDF
80 FR 32090 - Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 32092 - Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Intent To Rescind the New Shipper Review of Jinxiang Kaihua Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.PDF
80 FR 32078 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Plantwide Applicability Limits for Greenhouse GasesPDF
80 FR 32113 - Notification of Three Teleconferences of the Science Advisory Board Biogenic Carbon Emissions PanelPDF
80 FR 32019 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation PlanPDF
80 FR 32114 - Office of Research and Development; Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of One New Reference Method and Four New Equivalent MethodsPDF
80 FR 32127 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 32131 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 32129 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 31995 - Reporting for Premium; Basis Reporting by Securities Brokers and Basis Determination for Debt Instruments and Options; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 32040 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Commercial Blacknose Sharks and Non-Blacknose Small Coastal Sharks in the Atlantic RegionPDF
80 FR 32203 - Watco Holdings, Inc.-Continuance in Control Exemption-Lubbock and Western Railway, L.L.C.PDF
80 FR 32038 - Military Resale CommoditiesPDF
80 FR 32096 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionPDF
80 FR 32200 - Lubbock and Western Railway, L.L.C.-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-West Texas and Lubbock Railway Company, Inc., and West Texas and Lubbock Railroad Company, Inc.PDF
80 FR 32114 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 32203 - Texas New Mexico Railway, L.L.C.-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-Austin & Northwestern Railroad Company, Inc.PDF
80 FR 32183 - Advisory Committee on the Records of CongressPDF
80 FR 32182 - In re Distribution of Cable Royalty Funds; In re Distribution of Satellite Royalty FundsPDF
80 FR 31971 - Energy Conservation Program: Clarification for Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Fluorescent Lamp BallastsPDF
80 FR 31998 - Redelegation of Authority to Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, Branch Directors, Heads of Offices, and United States Attorneys in Civil Division CasesPDF
80 FR 32181 - Meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency PreventionPDF
80 FR 32082 - Hot Water Treatment of Oversized Mangoes; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 32042 - Prevailing Rate Systems; Special Wage Schedules for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Employees of the Vicksburg District in MississippiPDF
80 FR 32180 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS)PDF
80 FR 32160 - Dental Preventive and Clinical Support Centers Program; Office of Clinical and Preventive Services, Division of Oral HealthPDF
80 FR 32167 - Notice of Request for InformationPDF
80 FR 32126 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 32097 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Supplemental Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Employment of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) SonarPDF
80 FR 32084 - Streamlining Summary Level 070 Tables in the 5-Year American Community SurveyPDF
80 FR 32200 - Watco Holdings, Inc.-Continuance in Control Exemption-Texas New Mexico Railway, L.L.C.PDF
80 FR 31990 - Extension of Sunset Date for Attorney Advisor ProgramPDF
80 FR 32093 - International Trade Data System Test Concerning the Electronic Submission of Certain Data Required for ImportsPDF
80 FR 32110 - Record of Decision for the South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) (DOE-EIS 0417)PDF
80 FR 32082 - Tri County Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 32082 - Rico West Dolores Roads and Trails Project (Travel Management); Dolores District of the San Juan National Forest; ColoradoPDF
80 FR 32039 - Maintenance of and Access to Records Pertaining to IndividualsPDF
80 FR 32132 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 32176 - Call for Nominations to the National Geospatial Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 32196 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Request for Renewal of Two Previously Approved Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 32197 - Notice of Coordinated Remedy Program Proceeding for the Replacement of Certain Takata Air Bag InflatorsPDF
80 FR 32133 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 32002 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972PDF
80 FR 32174 - Suspension of Altol Chemical and Environmental Laboratory as a Customs-Accredited LaboratoryPDF
80 FR 32186 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 32179 - 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers From China; DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 32046 - Regulatory Publication and Review Under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996PDF
80 FR 32206 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special-Disabilities ProgramsPDF
80 FR 32099 - Bishop Tungsten Development, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
80 FR 32103 - Notice of Filing; Malandro, Michael E.PDF
80 FR 32110 - Acciona Wind Energy USA LLC v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of ComplaintPDF
80 FR 32104 - Reliability Technical Conference, North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Supplemental Notice With Final AgendaPDF
80 FR 32107 - Wright, Laura H.; Notice of FilingPDF
80 FR 32100 - Linden VFT, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of ComplaintPDF
80 FR 32102 - Notice of Application; El Paso Natural Gas Company, LLCPDF
80 FR 32101 - Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 32103 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
80 FR 32107 - Harborside Energy of Massachusetts, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 32108 - The People of the State of Illinois By Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of ComplaintPDF
80 FR 32109 - Public Citizens, Inc. v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.; Notice of ComplaintPDF
80 FR 32105 - Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Ohio Valley Connector Project Amendment and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
80 FR 32102 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
80 FR 32108 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 32100 - Electronic Filing Protocols for Commission Forms; Supplemental Notice of Conference With North American Energy Standards BoardPDF
80 FR 32187 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Representation Regarding Investment in Certain Mortgage-Related Securities by the AdvisorShares Sage Core Reserves ETFPDF
80 FR 32190 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule To Amend Fees Applicable to Securities Listed on BATS Exchange, Inc. Pursuant to BATS Rule 14.13PDF
80 FR 32098 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Transition to Teaching EvaluationPDF
80 FR 32098 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Formula Grant EASIE Annual Performance ReportPDF
80 FR 32173 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Customs DeclarationPDF
80 FR 31996 - Segregation Rule Effective DatePDF
80 FR 32000 - Searches of Housing Units, Inmates, and Inmate Work Areas: Use of X-Ray Devices-Clarification of TerminologyPDF
80 FR 32097 - Public Availability of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board FY 2013 Service Contract Inventory Analysis/FY 2014 Service Contract InventoryPDF
80 FR 32176 - Renewals of Information Collections and Request for New Collection Under the Paperwork Reduction ActPDF
80 FR 32136 - Draft Guidance for Industry on the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program for Food Importers and Guidelines in Consideration of the Burden of the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program Fee Amounts on Small Business; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 32201 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and ApprovalsPDF
80 FR 32205 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint CommitteePDF
80 FR 32205 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project CommitteePDF
80 FR 32206 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project CommitteePDF
80 FR 32140 - Authorizations of Emergency Use of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for Detection of Ebola Virus; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 32135 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 32136 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing, Form FDA 2830PDF
80 FR 32136 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Current Good Manufacturing Practices for Finished PharmaceuticalsPDF
80 FR 32157 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Formal Meetings Between the Food and Drug Administration and Biosimilar Biological Product Sponsors or ApplicantsPDF
80 FR 32127 - Final Revised Vaccine Information Materials for Td, Tdap, Hib, and Rotavirus VaccinesPDF
80 FR 32206 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects CommitteePDF
80 FR 32205 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project CommitteePDF
80 FR 32205 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project CommitteePDF
80 FR 32172 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 32172 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 32185 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 32204 - Open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project CommitteePDF
80 FR 32078 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management DistrictPDF
80 FR 32026 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management DistrictPDF
80 FR 32095 - Vessel Monitoring System, Enhanced Mobile Transceiver Unit Type-ApprovalsPDF
80 FR 32111 - Notification of Teleconferences and a Public Meeting of the Science Advisory Board Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory PanelPDF
80 FR 32229 - Applications for New Awards; Investing in Innovation Fund-Scale-up GrantsPDF
80 FR 32216 - Applications for New Awards; Investing in Innovation Fund-Validation GrantsPDF
80 FR 32209 - Final Priority-Investing in Innovation FundPDF
80 FR 32003 - Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical SubstancesPDF
80 FR 32043 - Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California; Proposed Amendments to Marketing OrderPDF
80 FR 31991 - Various National Indian Gaming Commission RegulationsPDF
80 FR 32074 - Proposed Establishment of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Western United StatesPDF
80 FR 31971 - Single Family Housing Direct Loan ProgramPDF
80 FR 32243 - Designation of National Security Positions in the Competitive Service, and Related MattersPDF
80 FR 32017 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Kansas; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
80 FR 32174 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 32061 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 757-200 Series Airplanes Modified by Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01529SE or STC ST02278SEPDF
80 FR 32072 - Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. HelicoptersPDF
80 FR 32063 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 32055 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 32069 - Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 32058 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 32066 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF

Issue

80 108 Friday, June 5, 2015 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Marketing Order Amendments: Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California, 32043-32046 2015-13647 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

See

Rural Housing Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Hot Water Treatment of Oversized Mangoes; Correction, 32082 2015-13780 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Streamlining Summary Level 070 Tables in the 5-Year American Community Survey, 32084-32085 2015-13771 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32127-32132 2015-13797 2015-13798 2015-13799 Final Revised Vaccine Information Materials for Td, Tdap, Hib, and Rotavirus Vaccines, 32127 2015-13694 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32132-32134 2015-13755 2015-13759 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32135 2015-13698 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled RULES Military Resale Commodities, 32038-32039 2015-13793 NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 32096-32097 2015-13791 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Review: Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, 32046-32055 2015-13749 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Bank Appeals Follow-Up Questionnaire, 32204 2015-13819 Copyright Royalty Board Copyright Royalty Board NOTICES Distribution of Satellite Royalty Funds, 32182-32183 2015-13784 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

Defense Nuclear Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board NOTICES FY 2013 Service Contract Inventory Analysis/FY 2014 Service Contract Inventory, 32097-32098 2015-13708 Education Department Education Department RULES Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria: Investing in Innovation Fund, 32210-32215 2015-13671 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Formula Grant EASIE Annual Performance Report, 32098 2015-13720 Transition to Teaching Evaluation, 32098-32099 2015-13721 Applications for New Awards: Investing in Innovation Fund -- Scale-up Grants, 32229-32241 2015-13673 Investing in Innovation Fund -- Validation Grants, 32216-32228 2015-13672 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

See

Western Area Power Administration

RULES Energy Conservation Program: Clarification for Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, 31971-31988 2015-13783
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District; Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 32026-32029 2015-13680 Kansas; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 32017-32019 2015-13402 West Virginia; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan, 32019-32026 2015-13801 Exemptions from the Requirement of a Tolerance: Aluminum sulfate, 32034-32038 2015-13821 n-Butyl benzoate, 32029-32034 2015-13818 Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances, 32003-32017 2015-13670 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District; Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 32078 2015-13682 Virginia; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Plantwide Applicability Limits for Greenhouse Gases, 32078-32081 2015-13804 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32116-32125 2015-13808 Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of One New Reference Method and Four New Equivalent Methods, 32114-32116 2015-13800 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc., 32114 2015-13787 Meetings: Science Advisory Board Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel, 32111-32113 2015-13674 Science Advisory Board Biogenic Carbon Emissions Panel; Teleconferences, 32113-32114 2015-13803 Farm Credit Farm Credit Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 32125-32126 2015-13856 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Instrument Flight Rules: Miscellaneous Amendments, 31988-31990 2015-13823 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters, 32072-32074 2015-13354 Airbus Airplanes, 32055-32061, 32063-32066 2015-13335 2015-13340 2015-13342 Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes, 32069-32072 2015-13339 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 32066-32069 2015-13328 The Boeing Company Model 757 200 Series Airplanes Modified by Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01529SE or STC ST02278SE, 32061-32063 2015-13358 Establishment of Air Traffic Service Routes: Western United States, 32074-32077 2015-13504 NOTICES Noise Compatibility Program: Lafayette Regional Airport, Lafayette, LA, 32196 2015-13829 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Meetings: Disability Advisory Committee, 32126 2015-13822 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Review: Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, 32046-32055 2015-13749 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Bishop Tungsten Development, LLC, 32099-32100 2015-13740 Dominion Transmission, Inc., 32101-32102 2015-13733 El Paso Natural Gas Co., LLC, 32102-32103 2015-13734 Combined Filings, 32102, 32108-32109 2015-13726 2015-13727 Complaints: Acciona Wind Energy USA LLC v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 32110 2015-13738 Linden VFT, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, LLC, 32100 2015-13735 People of the State of Illinois v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 32108 2015-13730 Public Citizens, Inc. v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., 32109 2015-13729 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Ohio Valley Connector Project; Equitrans, LP, 32105-32107 2015-13728 Filings: Malandro, Michael E., 32103 2015-13739 Wright, Laura H., 32107 2015-13736 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Harborside Energy of Massachusetts, LLC, 32107 2015-13731 Meetings: North American Electric Reliability Corp.; Technical Conference Supplement, 32104-32105 2015-13737 North American Energy Standards Board; Technical Conference Supplement, 32100-32101 2015-13725 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 32103-32104 2015-13732 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32196-32197 2015-13757 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Review: Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, 32046-32055 2015-13749 NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 32126 2015-13773 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Blood Establishment Registration and Product Listing, 32136 2015-13697 Current Good Manufacturing Practices for Finished Pharmaceuticals, 32136 2015-13696 Guidance for Industry on Formal Meetings between the Food and Drug Administration and Biosimilar Biological Product Sponsors or Applicants, 32157-32160 2015-13695 Emergency Use Authorizations: In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for Detection of Ebola Virus, 32140-32157 2015-13699 Guidance: Voluntary Qualified Importer Program for Food Importers and Guidelines in Consideration of the Burden of the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program Fee Amounts on Small Business, 32136-32140 2015-13706 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: voestalpine Texas, LLC (Hot Briquetted Iron) Portland, TX; Foreign-Trade Zone 122, Corpus Christi, TX, 32085 2015-13812 Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC (Passenger Motor Vehicles); Foreign-Trade Zone 134, Chattanooga, TN, 32085 2015-13813 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Rico West Dolores Roads and Trails Project (Travel Management); Dolores District of the San Juan National Forest, CO, 32082-32084 2015-13761 Meetings: Tri County Resource Advisory Committee, 32082 2015-13762 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Requests for Nominations: National Geospatial Advisory Committee, 32176 2015-13758 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Properties Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 32174-32176 2015-13392 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Funding Opportunities: Dental Preventive and Clinical Support Centers Program, 32160-32167 2015-13775 Requests for Information, 32167 2015-13774 Interior Interior Department See

Geological Survey

See

National Indian Gaming Commission

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Reporting for Premium: Basis Reporting by Securities Brokers and Basis Determination for Debt Instruments and Options; Correction, 31995-31996 2015-13796 Segregation Rule Effective Date, 31996-31998 2015-13711 NOTICES Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee, 32205-32206 2015-13704 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee, 32205 2015-13691 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee, 32206 2015-13693 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee, 32205 2015-13689 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee, 32204-32205 2015-13685 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee, 32206 2015-13700 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee, 32205 2015-13702 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from Taiwan, 32085-32087 2015-13811 Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China; Jinxiang Kaihua Imp and Exp Co., Ltd., 32092-32093 2015-13805 Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China, 32089-32090 2015-13828 Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China, 32087-32089 2015-13809 Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey, 32090-32092 2015-13807 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: 53-Foot Domestic Dry Containers from China, 32179-32180 2015-13750 Justice Department Justice Department See

Justice Programs Office

See

Parole Commission

See

Prisons Bureau

RULES Redelegation of Authority to Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, Branch Directors, Heads of Offices, and United States Attorneys in Civil Division Cases, 31998-32000 2015-13782 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Motor Vehicle Title Information System, 32180-32181 2015-13777
Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Meetings: Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 32181 2015-13781 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Royalty Board

National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress, 32183 2015-13785 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Coordinated Remedy Program Proceeding for the Replacement of Certain Takata Air Bag Inflators, 32197-32200 2015-13756 National Indian National Indian Gaming Commission RULES National Indian Gaming Commission Regulations; Various Amendments, 31991-31995 2015-13645 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32176-32179 2015-13707 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 32172-32173 2015-13688 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 32172 2015-13687 Up For a Challenge -- Stimulating Innovation in Breast Cancer Genetic Epidemiology: Requirements and Registration, 32168-32172 2015-13816 National Intelligence National Intelligence, Office of the National Director RULES Designations of National Security Positions in the Competitive Service, and Related Matters, 32244-32265 2015-13438 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Commercial Blacknose Sharks and Non-Blacknose Small Coastal Sharks in the Atlantic Region, 32040-32041 2015-13795 NOTICES International Trade Data System Test: Electronic Submission of Certain Data Required for Imports, 32093-32095 2015-13767 Vessel Monitoring System: Enhanced Mobile Transceiver Unit Type-Approvals, 32095-32096 2015-13675 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 32183 2015-13883 Navy Navy Department RULES International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea; Certifications and Exemptions, 32002-32003 2015-13754 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Employment of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar, 32097 2015-13772 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Guidance: Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences; Fiscal Year 2014; Dissemination of Information, 32183-32184 2015-13825 Inspection Reports: Louisiana Energy Services, URENCO USA Facility, Eunice, NM, 32184-32185 2015-13810 Parole Parole Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 32181-32182 2015-13974 Personnel Personnel Management Office RULES Designations of National Security Positions in the Competitive Service, and Related Matters, 32244-32265 2015-13438 PROPOSED RULES Prevailing Rate Systems: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Employees; Vicksburg District, MS; Special Wage Schedules, 32042-32043 2015-13778 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 32185-32187 2015-13686 2015-13714 2015-13751 Prisons Prisons Bureau RULES Searches of Housing Units, Inmates, and Inmate Work Areas: Use of X-ray Devices; Clarification of Terminology, 32000-32002 2015-13710 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service RULES Single Family Housing Direct Loan Program, 31971 2015-13463 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32192-32193 2015-13875 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 32190-32191 2015-13722 NYSE Arca, Inc., 32187-32190 2015-13723 Social Social Security Administration RULES Extension of Sunset Date for Attorney Advisor Program, 31990-31991 2015-13768 State Department State Department NOTICES Provision of Certain Temporary and Limited Sanctions Relief; Determinations: Islamic Republic of Iran, 32193-32195 2015-13814 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Acquisitions and Operation Exemptions: Lubbock and Western Railway, LLC; West Texas and Lubbock Railway Co., Inc., and West Texas and Lubbock Railroad Co., Inc., 32200 2015-13790 Texas New Mexico Railway, LLC from Austin and Northwestern Railroad Co., Inc., 32203-32204 2015-13786 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 32201-32203 2015-13705 Continuance in Control Exemptions: Watco Holdings, Inc. from Texas New Mexico Railway, LLC, 32200-32201 2015-13769 Watco Holdings, Inc.; Lubbock and Western Railway, LLC, 32203 2015-13794 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

RULES Maintenance of and Access to Records Pertaining to Individuals, 32039-32040 2015-13760
Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Customs Declaration, 32173-32174 2015-13713 Commercial Laboratories; Suspensions: Altol Chemical and Environmental Laboratory, 32174 2015-13753 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special-Disabilities Programs, 32206-32207 2015-13744 Western Western Area Power Administration NOTICES Records of Decisions: South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202), 32110-32111 2015-13765 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Education Department, 32210-32241 2015-13671 2015-13673 2015-13672 Part III National Intelligence, Office of the National Director, 32244-32265 2015-13438 Personnel Management Office, 32244-32265 2015-13438 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.

80 108 Friday, June 5, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service 7 CFR Part 3550 RIN 0575-AC88 Single Family Housing Direct Loan Program AGENCY:

Rural Housing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule; deferral of effective date.

SUMMARY:

On April 29, 2015, the Rural Housing Service (RHS) published a final rule to create a certified loan application packaging process for the direct single family housing loan program. The effective date was listed as July 28, 2015 and is being deferred to October 1, 2015.

DATES:

Effective date: The effective date of the final rule published April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23673) is deferred from July 28, 2015, to October 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brooke Baumann, Branch Chief, Single Family Housing Direct Loan Division, USDA Rural Development, Stop 0783, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0783, Telephone: 202-690-4250. Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In December 2014, the existing intermediaries under the pilot were informed that the pilot would end with the effective date of the final rule to create a certified loan application packaging process. While this expiration provision for the pilot was known, the actual date came sooner than expected. To allow the existing intermediaries under the pilot sufficient time to process loan application packages in their queue and to prepare for the implementation of the final rule, the effective date for the final rule will be deferred to October 1, 2015.

Dated: May 18, 2015. Tony Hernandez, Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-13463 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0016] RIN 1904-AB99 Energy Conservation Program: Clarification for Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

On December 29, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to clarify the test procedures for fluorescent lamp ballasts. That proposed rulemaking serves as the basis for the final rule. DOE is issuing a final rule to reorganize, reformat, correct, and clarify the scope of the energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. In addition, DOE is removing the outdated test procedure at Appendix Q and redesignating the current test procedure at Appendix Q1 as Appendix Q. DOE is also clarifying the test procedure setup at redesignated Appendix Q. Finally, DOE is revising the laboratory accreditation language and is providing clarification on the process for evaluating compliance with standards.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is July 6, 2015. Representations must be based on testing in accordance with the final rule starting December 2, 2015.

The incorporation of reference of certain publications listed in this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on March 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES:

The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_ standards/product.aspx/productid/62. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected] ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email: fluorescent_ lamp_ [email protected] ee.doe.gov. Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1777. Email: [email protected] hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Authority and Background II. Synopsis of the Final Rule III. Discussion A. Energy Conservation Standards 1. Changes to Organization 2. Changes to Definitions and Terminology B. Test Procedure 1. Lamp Pairing for Testing 2. Testing at Full Output 3. Measurement Clarification 4. Changes to Definitions 5. Rounding Ballast Luminous Efficiency 6. Language Changes and Corrections to the Text 7. Standby Mode Test Procedure C. Compliance and Certification 1. Laboratory Accreditation 2. Evaluating Compliance with Standards 3. Compliance Date for this Final Rule 4. Compliance Certification Management System IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 M. Congressional Notification N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Authority and Background

Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; “EPCA” or, “the Act”) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency and established the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” 2 These include fluorescent lamp ballasts, the subject of this final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(13))

1 For editorial reasons Part B was redesignated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified.

2 All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012) Part B of title III. For editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified.

Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 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 under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.

DOE published test procedure final rules on April 24, 1991, October 22, 2009, and May 4, 2011 (hereafter the “May 2011 test procedure final rule”), establishing active mode test procedures, standby and off mode test procedures, and revised active mode test procedures, respectively. 56 FR 18677, 74 FR 54445, and 76 FR 25211. The May 2011 test procedure final rule established Appendix Q1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. DOE also published final rules establishing and amending energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts on September 19, 2000, and November 14, 2011 (hereafter the “November 2011 standards final rule”), which completed the two energy conservation standard rulemakings required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(7). 65 FR 56740 and 76 FR 70547. The November 2011 standards final rule established the regulations located at 10 CFR 430.32(m)(8) through(10).

This final rule clarifies the contents of the energy conservation standards and test procedures promulgated by DOE. On January 6, 2015, DOE published a NOPR (hereafter the January 2015 NOPR) proposing clarifications to the test procedures for fluorescent lamp ballasts. 80 FR 404. That notice of proposed rulemaking serves as the basis for this final rule.

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

In this final rule, DOE discusses key aspects of the energy conservation standards and test procedures for fluorescent lamp ballasts and clarifies the corresponding requirements and specifications in the CFR. DOE is modifying the organization of 10 CFR 430.32(m) to clarify the applicability of the standards and exemptions. DOE is also consolidating 10 CFR 430.32(m) by deleting standards that are obsolete. In addition, DOE is clarifying definitions relating to ballast luminous efficiency (BLE) standards.

DOE is removing the outdated test procedure for ballast efficacy factor (BEF) at Appendix Q and redesignating the test procedure for BLE at Appendix Q1 as Appendix Q. In addition, DOE is adding testing clarifications to redesignated Appendix Q and is modifying redesignated Appendix Q to clarify the reference lamp pairings for testing. DOE is also clarifying the redesignated Appendix Q for test setup and measurement. In addition, DOE is making general changes to definitions, language, and corrections to the text. Finally, DOE is revising the laboratory accreditation language at 10 CFR 430.25. This final rule also discusses the process for evaluating compliance with standards by providing example calculations for evaluating compliance with BLE standards.

Representations of energy efficiency must be based on testing in accordance with this rulemaking within 180 days after the publication of the final rule.

III. Discussion A. Energy Conservation Standards

In the second rulemaking cycle required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(7), DOE amended existing energy conservation standards and adopted standards for additional ballasts in a final rule published on November 14, 2011 (hereafter “2011 Ballast Rule”). 76 FR 70548. The standards adopted as a result of this rulemaking are based on BLE and apply to all products listed in Table III.1. DOE has required compliance with these BLE standards since November 14, 2014.

Table III.1—Ballast Luminous Efficiency Standards Implemented by the 2011 Ballast Rule Fluorescent lamp ballasts shall have a ballast luminous efficiency no less than A/(1 + B * total lamp arc power ^−C) where A, B, and C are as follows: Product class A B C Instant start and rapid start ballasts (not classified as residential) that are designed to operate: 4-foot medium bipin lamps 0.993 0.27 0.25 2-foot U-shaped lamps 8-foot slimline lamps Programmed start ballasts (not classified as residential) that are designed to operate: 4-foot medium bipin lamps 0.993 0.51 0.37 2-foot U-shaped lamps 4-foot miniature bipin standard output lamps 4-foot miniature bipin high output lamps Instant start and rapid start ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that are designed to operate: 8-foot high output lamps 0.993 0.38 0.25 Programmed start ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that are designed to operate: 8-foot high output lamps 0.973 0.70 0.37 Sign ballasts that operate: 8-foot high output lamps 0.993 0.47 0.25 Instant start and rapid start residential ballasts that operate: 4-foot medium bipin lamps 0.993 0.41 0.25 2-foot U-shaped lamps 8-foot slimline lamps Programmed start residential ballasts that are designed to operate: 4-foot medium bipin lamps 0.973 0.71 0.37 2-foot U-shaped lamps

Several ballasts are exempt from BLE and power factor standards established by the 2011 Ballast Rule. See 10 CFR 430.32(m)(9). These exemptions consist of:

(1) Low frequency T8 ballasts that are designed, labeled, and marketed for use only in electromagnetic-interference-sensitive-environments and shipped in packages of 10 or fewer;

(2) Programmed start ballasts that operate 4-foot medium bipin (MBP) T8 lamps and deliver on average less than 140 milliamperes to each lamp; and

(3) Dimming ballasts except for those specified in 10 CFR 430.32(m)(10).

See 10 CFR 430.32(m)(9).

Dimming ballasts designed for the operation of one F34T12, two F34T12, two F96T12/ES, and two F96T12HO/ES lamps and that meet the specifications found at 10 CFR 430.32(m)(10)(i) and (ii) are subject to BLE standards specified in 10 CFR 430.32(m)(10)(iii).

DOE is adopting several changes to the energy conservation standards section of the CFR for ballasts (10 CFR 430.32(m)) to clarify the applicability of standards and exemptions and improve readability. These changes are described in detail in the following sections.

1. Changes to Organization

In the January 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed modifications to the organization of 10 CFR 430.32(m) to clarify the applicability of standards and exemptions. 80 FR at 417. DOE proposed to consolidate 10 CFR 430.32(m) by deleting standards that are no longer applicable. 10 CFR 430.32(m) currently contains the standards established by NAECA 1988, the 2000 Ballast Rule, EPACT 2005, and the 2011 Ballast Rule. The standards established by each of these actions are accompanied by compliance dates and exemptions. DOE proposed to remove the sections of 10 CFR 430.32(m) that have become obsolete (i.e., existing sections 10 CFR 430.32(m)(1)-(m)(7)). DOE proposed to reorganize the remaining sections of 10 CFR 430.32(m) to enhance readability.

Additionally, in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to modify the standards table in 10 CFR 430.32(m). 80 FR at 419. In many cases, several different types of ballasts are subject to the same BLE standards. However, due to a formatting error, the table in existing section 430.32(m)(8) added additional lines and borders between these ballast types subject to the same BLE standards. For example, instant start and rapid start ballasts (not classified as residential) that are designed to operate 4-foot MBP, 2-foot U-shaped, and 8-foot slimline lamps are all subject to the same BLE standards. To clarify that certain groups of ballasts are subject to the same standards, DOE proposed to remove some lines and borders to accurately group the ballasts and standards. The chart will conform to what is shown in Table III.1.

DOE received no comment in response to the proposed organizational changes in the January 2015 NOPR. Based on the reasons presented in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE is adopting these changes in this final rule.

2. Changes to Definitions and Terminology

In the January 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed changes to the definitions and terminology used in 10 CFR 430.32(m) pertaining to BLE standards. 80 FR at 418-419. DOE proposed to remove descriptions of terminology at existing (m)(8)(iv) through (vi) and instead reference redesignated Appendix Q (see section III.B) for definitions of the terms average total lamp arc power, instant start, programmed start, rapid start, residential ballast, and sign ballast. In addition, DOE proposed to use the phrase “that are not residential ballasts” in amended sections 10 CFR 430.32(m)(1)(ii)(A) and (m)(2)(ii)(A) to refer to any ballasts that do not meet the definition of residential ballast in redesignated Appendix Q. The NOPR reasoned that this change would improve clarity through consistent usage of a single phrase and reducing cross-references to other paragraphs. 80 FR at 406.

Finally, DOE proposed to replace the phrase “designed, labeled, and marketed” with the phrase “designed and marketed” as defined at 10 CFR 430.2, in the description of a low frequency ballast at amended section 10 CFR 430.32(m)(3)(ii). 80 FR at 419. The definition of “designed and marketed” at 10 CFR 430.2 clarifies that a ballast is recognized as designed and marketed if the intended application of the lamp is stated in a publicly available document (e.g., product literature, catalogs, packaging labels, and labels on the product itself).3

3 The definition of “designed and marketed” was established in the general service fluorescent lamp and incandescent reflector lamp energy conservation standard rulemaking. See http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0006.

Similarly, DOE proposed to replace the phrase “for use in connection with” with the phrase “designed and marketed to operate” at amended section 10 CFR 430.32(m)(2) and amended section 10 CFR 430.32(m)(3)(i). 80 FR at 419. DOE also proposed to replace the phrase “that operate” with “that are designed to operate” at amended section 10 CFR 430.32(m)(1)(ii)(B). These revisions eliminate potential confusion or ambiguity by clarifying the original intent of this language. 80 FR at 418.

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) agreed with the proposed revision regarding consistent use of the phrase “designed and marketed for operation.” (NEMA, No. 30 at p. 3) 4 DOE received no further comments in response to the proposed changes to definitions and terminology in the January 2015 NOPR. Based on the reasons presented in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE is adopting these changes in this final rule. In this final rule, DOE is also changing the column heading at amended section 10 CFR 430.32(m)(2)(ii)(B) from “Ballast input voltage” to “Nominal input voltage” to align with usage in section 430.32(m)(2)(i)(A) and eliminate potential confusion.

4 A notation in this form provides a reference for information that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop test procedures for fluorescent lamp ballasts (Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0016), which is maintained at www.regulations.gov. This notation indicates that the statement preceding the reference is document number 30 in the docket for the fluorescent lamp ballasts test procedure rulemaking, and appears at page 3 of that document.

B. Test Procedure

Manufacturers were previously required to use the test procedure for ballasts at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Q to determine compliance with BEF standards. The May 2011 test procedure final rule established appendix Q1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 to determine compliance with BLE standards. As stated in section III.A, compliance with BLE standards has been required since November 14, 2014. Because the BEF standards are no longer applicable, DOE is removing the test procedure for BEF at Appendix Q and redesignating the Appendix Q1 test procedure for BLE as Appendix Q. DOE is revising any references to Appendix Q1 in the CFR to reference redesignated Appendix Q. DOE is also making several changes to redesignated Appendix Q to clarify the test procedures for measuring BLE. These changes are described in detail in the following sections.

1. Lamp Pairing for Testing

In the May 2011 test procedure final rule, DOE specified that ballasts are to be paired with the most common wattage lamp and provided a table (Table A of existing appendix Q1 of subpart B of part 430) to indicate which lamp should be used with each ballast. 76 FR 25211 (May 4, 2011). Table A lists the ballast description along with the lamp type intended for testing. Though ballasts can frequently operate lamps of the same diameter but different wattages, DOE requires testing with only one lamp wattage per ballast. To clarify this requirement, in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to indicate in section 2.3.1.7 of redesignated Appendix Q that each ballast should be tested with only one lamp type corresponding to the lamp diameter and base type the ballast is designed and marketed to operate. 80 FR at 415. For example, a ballast designed and marketed to operate both 32 watt (W) 4-foot MBP T8 lamps and 28 W 4-foot MBP T8 lamps should only be tested with the 32 W lamp. Additionally, stakeholders requested clarification on testing ballasts that are designed and marketed as operating both T8 and T12 lamps. Therefore, DOE also proposed to indicate in section 2.3.1.5 of redesignated Appendix Q that a ballast designed and marketed to operate both T8 and T12 lamps must be tested with T8 lamps. DOE explained in the NOPR that it believes T8 lamps will be the most common lamp type paired with these ballasts. 80 FR at 406.

Regarding this proposal, NEMA commented that there may be some confusion with lamp pairings for the electronic sign ballasts in the proposed language because these ballasts can operate both T12 HO and T8 HO lamps. NEMA recommended that DOE adopt the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) lamp abbreviations from ANSI C78.81.5 (NEMA, No. 30 at p. 2) DOE agrees that referencing the ANSI and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) lamp specifications may further clarify the lamp pairings used for testing. However, the lamp specifications for U-shaped and T5 lamps (i.e., ANSI_IEC C78.901-2005 6 and IEC 60081[Amendment 4, Edition 5.0] 7) are not currently incorporated by reference in the CFR for existing Appendix Q1. Therefore, DOE will address this lamp identification issue for all lamp types collectively in a separate rulemaking.

5 “American National Standard for Electric Lamps: Double-Capped Fluorescent Lamps—Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics” (approved Jan. 14, 2010).

In this final rule, DOE is also specifying that ballasts designed and marketed to operate both 4-foot MBP lamps and 2-foot U-shaped lamps must be tested with 4-foot MBP lamps. DOE believes there could be confusion on testing these ballasts similar to the sign ballasts cited by NEMA which are also capable of operating multiple lamp types. This clarification supports DOE's requirement of testing with only one lamp type per ballast. DOE is adding the requirement to redesignated Appendix Q at section 2.3.1.5 and is renumbering the sections thereafter.

DOE notes that 34 W MBP T12 U-shaped lamps (commonly referred to as 2-foot U-shaped lamps) are not listed in ANSI_ANSLG C78.81-2010, ANSI_IEC C78.901-2005, or IEC 60081 (Amendment 4, Edition 5.0). This prevents identification of a 34W T12 2-foot U-shaped reference lamp to pair with a ballast for BLE testing. However, DOE could not identify ballasts that are capable of only operating 34W T12 2-foot U-shaped lamps. Instead, all ballasts capable of operating 34W T12 2-foot U-shaped lamps could also operate 34W T12 MBP lamps.8 Because there is not a current market need, and because DOE does not anticipate a need in the future, DOE is not providing 34W T12 2-foot U-shaped lamp specifications.

8 DOE requires that ballasts designed and marketed to operate both 4-foot MBP lamps and 2-foot U-shaped lamps must be tested with 4-foot MBP lamps.

In the January 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise Table A of existing Appendix Q1 to further clarify the requirement of testing with only one lamp type per ballast. 80 FR at 415. DOE proposed to add borders to Table A in redesignated Appendix Q to emphasize that testing with only one lamp type per ballast is necessary. DOE also proposed to revise the column heading corresponding to the lamp description to read “Lamp Type” to provide a clear linkage to the direction that only one lamp type should be paired with each ballast for testing. Table III.2 and Table III.3 present an example from Table A, highlighting the existing and proposed versions, respectively.

Table III.2—Existing Table A Excerpt Ballast type Nominal lamp wattage Lamp diameter and base Frequency adjustment factor Low-frequency High-frequency Ballasts that operate straight-shaped lamps (commonly referred to as 4-foot medium bipin lamps) with medium bipin bases and a nominal overall length of 48 inches 32
  • 34
  • T8 MBP
  • T12 MBP
  • 0.94
  • 0.93
  • 1.0
  • 1.0
  • Ballasts that operate straight-shaped lamps (commonly referred to as 4-foot medium bipin lamps) with medium bipin bases and a nominal overall length of 48 inches 32
  • 34
  • T8 MBP
  • T8 MBP
  • 0.94
  • 0.94
  • 1.0
  • 1.0
  • For clarity, DOE also proposed in the January 2015 NOPR to revise the ballast type description for sign ballasts in Table A to read “Sign ballasts that operate rapid-start lamps (commonly referred to as 8-foot high output lamps) with recessed double contact bases and a nominal overall length of 96 inches.” 80 FR at 415. Additionally, DOE proposed to add a definition for “sign ballast” in redesignated Appendix Q based on the existing description of sign ballast in 10 CFR 430.32(m). 80 FR at 414. See section III.B.4 for more information.

    DOE received no comment in response to the proposed changes to Table A in the January 2015 NOPR. Based on the reasons presented above, DOE is adopting these changes in this final rule.

    2. Testing at Full Output

    In section 2.5.1.2 of existing Appendix Q1, DOE specifies that the ballast should be operated at full output during the stabilization process, and measurements should be made after the stabilization condition is reached. In the January 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise this statement in redesignated Appendix Q to make clear that the ballast should remain at full output while the measurements are taken. 80 FR at 417. This is consistent with DOE's intent that both dimming and fixed light output ballasts are tested at full light output. Id at 407.

    NEMA agreed with the clarification that ballasts be tested at full output. (NEMA, No. 30 at p. 2) DOE received no further comments on this clarification. Thus, based on the reasons presented in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE is adopting this clarification in this final rule.

    3. Measurement Clarification

    DOE specifies in section 2.3.2.1 of existing Appendix Q1 that the power analyzer must have n+1 channels where n is the number of lamps a ballast operates. DOE notes that, for certain ballasts, it is possible for n+1 to be greater than the number of channels supplied by a single power analyzer. In the January 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify in redesignated Appendix Q that the test lab use the minimum number of power analyzers possible during testing. 80 FR at 415. DOE explained in the NOPR that a power analyzer commonly used in the lighting industry has six channels but can be linked to a second power analyzer when additional channels are needed. If a test lab needed seven channels to test a ballast that operates six lamps, for example, they should use only two analyzers. Id at 407.

    NEMA disagreed with the proposed clarification to the measurement, noting that it is possible for the “connection” between power analyzers to be achieved through the data acquisition computer and software. As written, NEMA commented the instruction at section 2.3.2.1 of existing Appendix Q1 would limit instrumentation options unnecessarily. NEMA recommended that the language be stated as: “The power analyzer test setup must have n+1 channels where n is the number of lamps a ballast operates. Use the minimum number of power analyzers possible during testing. A system may be used to synchronize the power analyzers, and the power analyzers must be synchronized in time.” (NEMA, No. 30 at pp. 2-3)

    DOE reviewed NEMA's recommendation, including the insertion of the words “test setup” in the existing text, and the new sentence specifying how multiple power analyzers should be used. DOE agrees that insertion of the word “test setup” clarifies the intent of the sentence that the sum of the number of channels in all power analyzers used in the test setup must be at least the number of lamps plus one. DOE agrees that a data acquisition software system can be used to connect the power analyzers used in the test setup and also agrees that adding the third sentence recommended by NEMA may help clarify this requirement. While electrical measurements must be taken after the ballast has been stabilized, synchronization of multiple power analyzers in time is still the best practice, and most closely simulates the simultaneous measurements taken by a single power analyzer. Therefore DOE is amending section 2.3.2.1 of redesignated Appendix Q to read, “The power analyzer test setup must have n+1 channels where n is the number of lamps a ballast operates. Use the minimum number of power analyzers possible during testing. A system may be used to synchronize the power analyzers, and all power analyzers must be synchronized in time.”

    4. Changes to Definitions

    In the January 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed changes to existing Appendix Q1 relating to definitions used in the test procedure. 80 FR at 414 through 418. DOE proposed to modify the definition of “residential ballast” in the definitions section of existing Appendix Q1 to align with the existing description at 10 CFR 430.32(m)(8)(vi) and the definition of “designed and marketed” at 10 CFR 430.2 (see section III.A.2 for more information). DOE proposed to define residential ballast in redesignated Appendix Q as “a fluorescent lamp ballast that meets FCC consumer limits as set forth in 47 CFR part 18 and is designed and marketed for use only in residential applications.” DOE also proposed to remove the definition of “commercial ballast” that is in the existing Appendix Q1 and instead use the phrase “that are not residential ballasts” in redesignated Appendix Q when referring to any ballasts that do not meet the definition of residential ballast. In the NOPR, DOE explained that this proposed change would align redesignated Appendix Q with the proposed terminology changes in the energy conservation standards at 430.32(m). 80 FR at 407.

    In addition, DOE proposed in the January 2015 NOPR to add several terms to the definitions section of redesignated Appendix Q pertaining to BLE standards. 80 FR at 414. First, DOE proposed to add a definition for average total lamp arc power to clarify how to calculate the applicable BLE standard. Average total lamp arc power is referenced in the BLE standards equation (at 10 CFR 430.32(m)(8)) shown in Table III.1. The proposed definition for average total lamp arc power was “the average of the total lamp arc power (as defined and measured in section 2.6.1) of the ballast units tested.” 80 FR at 414.

    DOE also proposed in the January 2015 NOPR to add a definition for “dimming ballast” to redesignated Appendix Q. 80 FR at 414. The proposed definition for a dimming ballast is “a ballast that is designed to vary its output and that can achieve an output less than or equal to 50 percent of its maximum electrical output.” This proposed definition aligned with and clarifies the dimming ballast exemptions currently specified in 10 CFR 430.32(m). Thus, DOE also proposed to remove the description of a dimming ballast currently at 10 CFR 430.32(m)(9)(i). As proposed, 10 CFR 430.32 would instead reference the new definition for “dimming ballast” in redesignated Appendix Q. 80 FR at 418, 419.

    In addition, in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to add a definition for “sign ballast” to the definitions section of redesignated Appendix Q. 80 FR at 414. DOE proposed to define sign ballast based on the description currently at 10 CFR 430.32(m)(8)(v) and the definition of “designed and marketed” at 10 CFR 430.2 (see section III.A.2 for more information). DOE proposed to define a sign ballast as “a ballast that has an Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Type 2 rating and is designed and marketed for use only in outdoor signs.” Rather than listing a description of sign ballast, as does section 2.3.1.4 of existing Appendix Q1, DOE proposed that section 2.3.1.6 of redesignated Appendix Q reference the term in the definitions section of that appendix. 80 FR at 415.

    DOE also proposed in the January 2015 NOPR to simplify the language in redesignated Appendix Q by relying on newly defined terms in the definitions within that appendix. 80 FR at 414 through 418. Specifically, in section 2.4.3, DOE proposed to replace the language “For ballasts designed and labeled for residential applications” with “For residential ballasts.” In addition, DOE proposed to replace the language “For ballasts designed and labeled as cold-temperature outdoor sign ballasts” with “For sign ballasts.” 80 FR at 417.

    Finally, DOE proposed in the January 2015 NOPR to remove the terms “active mode” and “standby mode” from redesignated Appendix Q because these terms are already defined at 10 CFR 430.2. The NOPR explained that the definitions in existing Appendix Q1 are consistent with the definitions in 10 CFR 430.2 and are therefore redundant. 80 FR at 408.

    Regarding these proposed changes, NEMA commented in support of the changes to the definitions to “residential ballast,” “average of the total lamp power,” “dimming ballast,” and “sign ballast.” (NEMA, No. 30 at p. 3) DOE received no further comments regarding the proposed changes to the redesignated Appendix Q. Thus, based on the reasons presented in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE is adopting these changes in this final rule.

    In this final rule, DOE is also moving existing definitions of certain lamp types from existing Appendix Q to redesignated Appendix Q that were inadvertently omitted from the NOPR. These lamp types include F34T12, F96T12/ES, and F96T12HO/ES lamps. The omission of these definitions from the NOPR was a technical oversight as ballasts capable of operating these lamp types are subject to energy conservation standards under 10 CFR 430.32(m).

    5. Rounding Ballast Luminous Efficiency

    Currently, rounding requirements are not provided for the reported value of BLE. When developing standards in the November 2011 standards final rule, DOE rounded BLE to the thousandths place when analyzing the costs and benefits of the adopted standard. For consistency with the intent of the 2011 standards final rule, DOE proposed to specify rounding the reported value of BLE to the nearest thousandths place in the January 2015 NOPR. 80 FR at 414.

    NEMA commented that rounding to the thousandths place is acceptable as long as significant figures are handled correctly. (NEMA, No. 30 at p. 3) DOE received no further comments on rounding BLE. However, DOE has since determined that rounding requirements would be more appropriately addressed in 10 CFR 429.26. Therefore, DOE will provide rounding requirements for BLE in a separate rulemaking.

    6. Language Changes and Corrections to the Text

    In the January 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to add new language at redesignated Appendix Q for some of the testing requirements. 80 FR at 414-418. DOE proposed to use the terminology “designed and marketed for operation” to clarify references to the intended ballast types. See section III.A.2 for more information on the definition of “designed and marketed.” Within sections 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.4.1, 2.3.1.4.2, 2.3.1.4.3, and 2.4.3 of existing Appendix Q1, DOE proposed to change all instances of the following phrases to “designed and marketed for operation” in redesignated Appendix Q:

    (1) “Designed to operate;”

    (2) “That only operate;” and

    (3) “Capable of operating.” 80 FR at 414-418.

    The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) agreed with the proposed revision regarding consistent use of the phrase “designed and marketed for operation.” Further, NEMA agreed with the redesignation of Appendix Q1 and clarification changes to redesignated Appendix Q. (NEMA, No. 30 at p. 3) DOE received no further comments in response to the proposed organizational changes in the January 2015 NOPR. Based on the reasons presented in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE is adopting these changes in this final rule.

    Additionally, DOE proposed in the January 2015 NOPR to modify the language of section 2.1 of redesignated Appendix Q to clarify the references to industry standards. 80 FR at 415. DOE believes the sentence as currently written does not clearly explain that the industry standards incorporated by reference in the CFR must be used in place of those listed in the industry standard ANSI C82.2. DOE proposed to add the word “standards” as noted in the following sentence: “In addition when applying ANSI C82.2, the standards ANSI C78.81, ANSI C82.1, ANSI C82.11, and ANSI C82.13 (all incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) must be used instead of the versions listed as normative references in ANSI C82.2.” 80 FR at 415.

    DOE also proposed in the January 2015 NOPR a correction in redesignated Appendix Q relating to an error in existing Appendix Q1 that occurred during publication of the May 2011 test procedure final rule. In section 2.3.1, the heading numbers skip from 2.3.1 to 2.3.1.1.1 (i.e., 2.3.1.1 is omitted). DOE proposed to correct this heading numbering error in redesignated Appendix Q. 80 FR at 415.

    Finally, in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise a grammatical issue in redesignated Appendix Q that is in existing section 1.7 of Appendix Q1, which defines “instant-start.” In section 1.7 of redesignated Appendix Q, DOE proposed to insert the word “in” so that the definition of instant-start reads “is the starting method used in instant-start systems as defined in ANSI C82.13 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).” 80 FR at 414.

    DOE did not receive any additional comments regarding the language changes and corrections to redesignated Appendix Q proposed in the January 2015 NOPR. Based on the reasons presented in the January 2015 NOPR, DOE is adopting these changes in this final rule.

    7. Standby Mode Test Procedure

    DOE published a test procedure final rule addressing standby mode energy consumption for ballasts on October 22, 2009. 74 FR at 54445. However, DOE did not adopt standards for standby mode energy use because DOE could not find any ballasts subject to standards that were capable of operating in standby mode. 76 FR 70548, 70553-4 (Nov. 14, 2011). DOE did not address standby mode testing in the January 2015 NOPR. However, DOE received a comment from NEMA stating that ANSI C82.2-2002 9 does not list a test procedure for standby power. NEMA expressed concern that DOE does not appreciate the scale of control signal power when compared to the range of power supplied by the mains to dimming ballasts, and added that standby power measurement of electronic lighting is still a new field. Further, NEMA remarked that it is equally challenging to measure standby mode power consumption for some control interfaces, and that high-end power analyzer uncertainty will be higher than the targeted power. (NEMA, No. 30 at pp. 5-6)

    9 “American National Standards for Lamp Ballasts—High Frequency Lamp Ballasts—Supplements” (approved January 17, 2002).

    DOE investigated the uncertainty associated with high-end power analyzers commonly used by industry to conduct testing in accordance with ANSI C82.2-2010. Uncertainty is a function of factors such as the magnitude of the current and voltage signal, frequency, and power factor. Power analyzer uncertainty is specified by the power analyzer manufacturer and is the ratio of the measured value (frequently referred to as “the reading”) and the range over which the power analyzer is configured to measure (frequently referred to as “the range”), reported as a percentage. DOE reviewed the calculation example provided by NEMA and agrees with the approach. However, DOE disagrees with the range selected for current measurements in the example. A power analyzer offers a discrete set of range options, and the range generally selected for a given measurement would be the smallest value that is greater than the expected reading.10 Had NEMA selected a range of 0.1 amps rather than two amps for the reading of 0.0083 amps, the uncertainty in the power measurement would be much smaller (on the order of two percent of the reading rather than NEMA's calculated 30 percent).

    10 The range typically provides some buffer in excess of the reading to account for non-sinusoidal signals and high instantaneous peak signal values.

    Therefore, DOE finds no reason to amend the standby mode test procedure on the basis of power analyzer measurement uncertainty. While ANSI C82.2-2010 does not discuss standby mode power measurements specifically, DOE finds that in concert with instructions to place the ballast in standby mode, ANSI C82.2-2010 is an appropriate basis for measurement. DOE will retain incorporation by reference of ANSI C82.2-2010 in its standby mode test procedure at redesignated Appendix Q to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

    C. Compliance and Certification 1. Laboratory Accreditation

    DOE has received feedback that the language in 10 CFR 430.25 is causing confusion. Specifically, there has been confusion over the role of the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP), other accrediting bodies, Underwriter's Laboratories (UL), and Council of Canada. In the January 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise the text to read that testing “must be conducted by test laboratories accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) or by an accreditation body that has a mutual recognition agreement for which NVLAP is a signatory.” 80 FR at 414. DOE received several comments regarding this clarification.

    The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) agreed with the clarifications made in 10 CFR 430.25 regarding the revisions to the laboratory accreditation language. A2LA recommended further simplifying the requirement by stating that testing could be conducted by test laboratories accredited by an Accreditation Body that is a signatory member to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) mutual recognition arrangement (MRA) and removing the specific references to NVLAP. A2LA added that if there is concern regarding the use of additional laboratories or MRA‐signatory Accreditation Bodies, that DOE use a vetting process similar to that used to recognize Accreditation Bodies for the Lighting Facts program. (A2LA, No. 28 at p. 1)

    DOE agrees with A2LA's recommendation to consolidate the accreditation requirement by stating testing could be conducted by test laboratories accredited by an Accreditation Body that is a signatory member to the ILAC MRA. The statement simplifies the accreditation requirements while also maintaining the change to allow for testing at laboratories accredited by NVLAP as well as laboratories accredited by other organizations with equivalent functions as NVLAP. Therefore, DOE is adopting the requirement that testing “must be conducted by test laboratories accredited by an Accreditation Body that is a signatory member to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).”

    CSA Group (CSA) expressed support for the clarification that testing “must be conducted by test laboratories accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) or by an accreditation body that has a mutual recognition agreement for which NVLAP is a signatory” provided the clarification does not preclude the use of a NVLAP accredited lab's Supervised Manufacturer's Testing Laboratory (SMTL) Program or Witnessed Manufacturer's Testing Laboratory (WMTL) Program. CSA added that SMTL/WMTL Programs are used by manufacturers for third-party compliance of Canadian Energy Efficiency Regulations, California Energy Commission Regulations, and U.S. EPA ENERGY STAR® Specifications. (CSA, No. 29 at p. 1)

    For fluorescent lamp ballast certification testing, DOE does not currently allow the practice of testing by first party laboratories through witness testing programs. DOE found that witness testing programs, such as SMTL and WMTL programs, vary depending on the regulatory body. Further, DOE determined that the program requirements were not well-defined. Because the program requirements varied among regulatory bodies and were not always clearly defined, DOE believes that allowing for witness testing may produce results that are not consistent or repeatable. Therefore, DOE declines to add a provision permitting use of a witnessed or supervised testing program. All testing must be conducted at a laboratory accredited by an Accreditation Body that is a signatory member to the ILAC MRA, including manufacturer laboratories. Additionally, DOE is maintaining the existing clarification that states a manufacturer's or importer's own laboratory, if accredited, may conduct the applicable testing.

    NEMA proposed that the changes to the existing 10 CFR 430.25 read “must be conducted by test laboratories accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP), or by an Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL), or by an accreditation body that has a mutual recognition agreement for which NVLAP is a signatory.” (NEMA, No. 30 at p. 4)

    DOE considered whether NRTLs should be added to the laboratory accreditation requirements and found that the DOE test procedure at Appendix Q1 and the industry standards incorporated by reference in Appendix Q1 are not included in the list of test standards determined to be appropriate for use under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) NRTL program. Because the laboratory accreditation requirements specified at 10 CFR 430.25 only apply to the DOE test procedure, DOE does not find it necessary to add NRTLs to the list of acceptable test laboratories.

    Additionally, DOE proposed in the January 2015 NOPR to remove the statement at 10 CFR 430.25 noting that testing for fluorescent lamp ballasts performed in accordance with the existing Appendix Q is not required to be conducted by test laboratories accredited by NVLAP or an accrediting organization recognized by NVLAP. 80 FR at 414. The NOPR reasoned that, because DOE proposed to remove the BEF test procedure at existing Appendix Q and replace it with the BLE test procedure from existing Appendix Q1, this statement is also no longer relevant. 80 FR at 408. DOE received no comment in response to these additional proposed text changes to 10 CFR 430.25 in the January 2015 NOPR. Based on the reasons presented above, DOE is adopting these changes in this final rule.

    Finally, DOE proposed in the January 2015 NOPR to remove statements at 10 CFR 430.25 indicating the relevant Appendix for testing specific lighting products. 80 FR at 414. The NOPR explained that DOE proposed to remove these unnecessary statements so that 10 CFR 430.25 is focused solely on laboratory accreditation. 80 FR at 408.

    NEMA commented that these proposed changes are too far reaching, and suggested that DOE limit the change to passages pertaining only to fluorescent ballasts. (NEMA, No. 30 at p. 4) DOE is not certain what NEMA intended by its comment that the proposed changes are too far reaching, given that the other proposed changes to 430.25 were to remove obsolete and/or redundant provisions. Therefore, to provide clarity and simplify the text of 10 CFR 430.25, DOE is removing all statements indicating the relevant Appendix for testing specific lighting products, not just for fluorescent lamp ballasts.

    2. Evaluating Compliance With Standards

    Manufacturers must evaluate compliance with BLE standards according to 10 CFR 429.26. As prescribed at 10 CFR 429.26(a)(2), for each basic model of fluorescent lamp ballast, a minimum of four units must be randomly selected and tested using redesignated Appendix Q. The manufacturer must then evaluate compliance with the standard by comparing the mean from testing and the lower 99 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 0.99. The mean of the sample is computed using the equation at section 429.26(a)(2)(ii)(A), and the equation to evaluate the LCL is found at section 429.26(a)(2)(ii)(B). The following is an example calculation for evaluating compliance with BLE standards.

    Table III.4 presents example test data used to evaluate compliance with standards for a fluorescent lamp ballast designed and marketed for operation of a maximum of two F96T8 lamps.

    ER05JN15.015

    The example ballast is a universal voltage, high frequency ballast designed to operate 8-foot slimline lamps and is intended for use in non-residential applications. Four units of the basic model are tested using the test procedure at redesignated Appendix Q. Each unit is tested while operating two 59 W F96T8 lamps, and the resulting measurements are shown in Table III.4. The required calculations are performed for each ballast and include computing the BLE and power factor. To calculate the BLE of unit 1, Equation 1 is utilized.

    ER05JN15.016 Where: Total Lamp Arc Power = sum of the lamp arc powers for all lamps operated by the ballast (as determined by section 2.5.1.5 of amended Appendix Q), Input Power = measured input power to the ballast (as determined by section 2.5.1.6 of amended Appendix Q), and β = frequency adjustment factor (Table A of amended Appendix Q).

    Equation 2 shows the calculation for BLE using the data from Table III.4 for unit 1.

    ER05JN15.017

    The power factor is also calculated for unit 1 using Equation 3.

    ER05JN15.018

    Equation 4 shows the calculation for power factor using the data from Table III.4 for unit 1.

    ER05JN15.019

    The same process is repeated for each of the three remaining ballast units. The resulting BLE and power factor values are shown in Table III.4.

    To determine the minimum BLE that a basic model must meet or exceed to be compliant with standards, manufacturers must average the total lamp arc power of the units and input the average into the appropriate energy conservation standard efficiency level. The reported BLE for each basic model must meet or exceed the output of Equation 5. For instant start ballasts that are designed to operate 8-foot slimline lamps, A = 0.993; B = 0.27; and C = 0.25.

    ER05JN15.020 Where: power = average total lamp arc power.

    The total lamp arc power is calculated using the data from Table III.4 for each of the tested ballasts as shown in Equation 6 for Unit 1. The average total lamp arc power of the sample is then calculated as shown in Equation 7. Equation 8 uses the resulting average total lamp arc power to calculate the BLE standard.

    ER05JN15.021

    Next, as stated previously, manufacturers must follow the provisions laid out in section 429.26 to certify for compliance. The mean BLE of the sample is calculated using Equation 9.

    ER05JN15.022 Where: x = sample mean, n = number of samples, and xi = ith sample.

    The mean BLE calculation using the data from Table III.4 is shown in Equation 10.

    ER05JN15.023

    The lower 99 percent confidence limit of the true mean is calculated using Equation 11.

    ER05JN15.024 Where: x = sample mean, s = sample standard deviation, n = number of samples, and t0.99 = t statistic for a 99% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom.

    Equation 12 and Equation 13 show calculations for LCL and LCL divided by 0.99, respectively, using the test data from Table III.4.

    ER05JN15.025

    Manufacturers may report that products perform within a range of values constrained by the standard and the statistical value based on test data. The standard serves as the minimum allowable BLE, and the lower of the mean BLE or LCL of the true mean divided by 0.99 serves as the maximum allowable BLE value reported for compliance. In this example, the mean is 0.928, and the LCL/0.99 is 0.936. Therefore, in this example, the minimum allowable BLE reported for compliance is the standard of 0.919, and the maximum BLE allowable to be reported is 0.928. No additional tolerances are provided when determining BLE.

    3. Compliance Date for This Final Rule

    Compliance with existing standards has been required since the dates discussed in section III.A. The amendments in this rulemaking will be effective 30 days following publication of this final rule. Consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6293(c), any representations of energy efficiency or energy use will be required to be based on the amended test procedure no later than 180 days after the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

    4. Compliance Certification Management System

    DOE did not discuss the contents of the DOE's Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS) in the January 2015 NOPR. However, DOE received a comment from NEMA stating that the template for submitting products to the DOE's CCMS includes categories no longer in use now that compliance is required with the energy conservation standards adopted in the November 2011 standards final rule. NEMA commented that DOE should remove the outdated categories. (NEMA, No. 30 at p. 6) DOE will remove the categories corresponding to outdated energy conservation standards in a future revision of the certification template.

    IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget.

    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) 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 Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

    This rulemaking clarifies existing requirements for testing and compliance with standards and does not change the burden associated with fluorescent lamp ballast regulations on any entity large or small. Therefore, DOE concludes and certifies that this rulemaking does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE's certification and supporting statement of factual basis will be provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA 11 for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). DOE certifies that this rule has no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    11 Small Business Administration.

    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of fluorescent lamp ballasts must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures for fluorescent lamp ballasts, 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 fluorescent lamp ballasts. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

    DOE requested OMB approval of an extension of this information collection for three years, specifically including the collection of information proposed in the present rulemaking, and estimated that the annual number of burden hours under this extension is 30 hours per company. In response to DOE's request, OMB approved DOE's information collection requirements covered under OMB control number 1910-1400 through November 30, 2017. 80 FR 5099 (January 30, 2015).

    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.

    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedures for fluorescent lamp ballasts. 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, this final rule would clarify the existing energy conservation standards and test procedures without affecting the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 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 examined this final rule and 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 today's final 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.

    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    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 final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    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 http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final 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.

    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

    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 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.

    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

    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). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    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 significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

    This regulatory action to clarify the energy conservation standards and test procedures for measuring the energy efficiency of fluorescent lamp ballasts 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.

    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the final rule must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition. This final rule does not revise the existing incorporation of industry standards regarding fluorescent lamp ballasts. Therefore, DOE concludes that the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA, (i.e., that the standards were developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review) do not apply to this rulemaking.

    M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.

    List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 29, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is amending part 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

    PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    2. Section 430.2 is amended by revising the definition of “ballast luminous efficiency” to read as follows:
    § 430.2 Definitions.

    Ballast luminous efficiency means the total fluorescent lamp arc power divided by the fluorescent lamp ballast input power multiplied by the appropriate frequency adjustment factor, as defined in appendix Q of subpart B of this part.

    § 430.3 [Amended]
    3. Section 430.3 is amended by: a. Removing “appendix Q1” in paragraphs (d)(5), (6), and (13); and b. Removing “and appendix Q1” in paragraphs (d)(11), (12), (14), and (15).
    § 430.23 [Amended]
    4. Section 430.23 is amended by removing “appendix Q1” and adding in its place, “appendix Q” in paragraphs (q)(1)(i), (q)(2), and (q)(3)(iii).
    5. Section 430.25 is revised to read as follows:
    § 430.25 Laboratory Accreditation Program.

    The testing for general service fluorescent lamps, general service incandescent lamps (with the exception of lifetime testing), incandescent reflector lamps, medium base compact fluorescent lamps, and fluorescent lamp ballasts must be conducted by test laboratories accredited by an Accreditation Body that is a signatory member to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA). A manufacturer's or importer's own laboratory, if accredited, may conduct the applicable testing.

    Appendix Q to Subpart B of Part 430 [Removed] 6. Appendix Q to subpart B of part 430 is removed. Appendix Q1 to Subpart B of Part 430 [Redesignated as Appendix Q to Subpart B of Part 430] 7. Appendix Q1 to subpart B of part 430 is redesignated as appendix Q to subpart B of part 430 and revised to read as follows: Appendix Q to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 1. Definitions

    1.1. AC control signal means an alternating current (AC) signal that is supplied to the ballast using additional wiring for the purpose of controlling the ballast and putting the ballast in standby mode.

    1.2. Average total lamp arc power means the average of the total lamp arc power (as defined and measured in section 2.6.1) of the ballast units tested.

    1.3. Cathode heating refers to power delivered to the lamp by the ballast for the purpose of raising the temperature of the lamp electrode or filament.

    1.4. DC control signal means a direct current (DC) signal that is supplied to the ballast using additional wiring for the purpose of controlling the ballast and putting the ballast in standby mode.

    1.5. Dimming ballast means a ballast that is designed to vary its output and that can achieve an output less than or equal to 50 percent of its maximum electrical output.

    1.6. F34T12 lamp (also known as a “F40T12/ES lamp”) means a nominal 34 watt tubular fluorescent lamp that is 48 inches in length and one and a half inches in diameter, and conforms to ANSI C78.81 (Data Sheet 7881-ANSI-1006-1) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).

    1.7. F96T12/ES lamp means a nominal 60 watt tubular fluorescent lamp that is 96 inches in length and one and a half inches in diameter, and conforms to ANSI C78.81 (Data Sheet 7881-ANSI-3006-1) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).

    1.8. F96T12HO/ES lamp means a nominal 95 watt tubular fluorescent lamp that is 96 inches in length and one and a half inches in diameter, and conforms to ANSI C78.81 (Data Sheet 7881-ANSI-1017-1) (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).

    1.9. High-frequency ballast is as defined in ANSI C82.13 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).

    1.10. Instant-start is the starting method used in instant-start systems as defined in ANSI C82.13 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).

    1.11. Low-frequency ballast is a fluorescent lamp ballast that operates at a supply frequency of 50 to 60 Hz and operates the lamp at the same frequency as the supply.

    1.12. PLC control signal means a power line carrier (PLC) signal that is supplied to the ballast using the input ballast wiring for the purpose of controlling the ballast and putting the ballast in standby mode.

    1.13. Programmed-start is the starting method used in programmed-start systems as defined in ANSI C82.13 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).

    1.14. Rapid-start is the starting method used in rapid-start type systems as defined in ANSI C82.13 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).

    1.15. Reference lamp is a fluorescent lamp that meets certain operating conditions as defined by ANSI C82.13 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).

    1.16. Residential ballast means a fluorescent lamp ballast that meets FCC consumer limits as set forth in 47 CFR part 18 and is designed and marketed for use only in residential applications.

    1.17. RMS is the root mean square of a varying quantity.

    1.18. Sign ballast means a ballast that has an Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Type 2 rating and is designed and marketed for use only in outdoor signs.

    1.19. Wireless control signal means a wireless signal that is radiated to and received by the ballast for the purpose of controlling the ballast and putting the ballast in standby mode.

    2. Active Mode Procedure

    2.1. Where ANSI C82.2 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) references ANSI C82.1-1997, the operator must use ANSI C82.1 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) for testing low-frequency ballasts and must use ANSI C82.11 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) for testing high-frequency ballasts. In addition when applying ANSI C82.2, the standards ANSI C78.81, ANSI C82.1, ANSI C82.11, and ANSI C82.13 must be used instead of the versions listed as normative references in ANSI C82.2.

    2.2. Instruments

    2.2.1. All instruments must be as specified by ANSI C82.2 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).

    2.2.2. Power Analyzer. In addition to the specifications in ANSI C82.2 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), the power analyzer must have a maximum 100 pF capacitance to ground and frequency response between 40 Hz and 1 MHz.

    2.2.3. Current Probe. In addition to the specifications in ANSI C82.2 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), the current probe must be galvanically isolated and have frequency response between 40 Hz and 20 MHz.

    2.3. Test Setup

    2.3.1. The ballast must be connected to a main power source and to the fluorescent lamp load according to the manufacturer's wiring instructions and ANSI C82.1 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) and ANSI C78.81 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).

    2.3.1.1. Wire lengths between the ballast and fluorescent lamp must be the length provided by the ballast manufacturer. Wires must be kept loose and not shortened or bundled.

    2.3.1.2. If the wire lengths supplied with the ballast are of insufficient length to reach both ends of lamp, additional wire may be added. Add the minimum additional wire length necessary, and the additional wire must be the same wire gauge as the wire supplied with the ballast. If no wiring is provided with the ballast, 18 gauge or thicker wire must be used. The wires must be separated from each other and grounded to prevent parasitic capacitance for all wires used in the apparatus, including those wires from the ballast to the lamps and from the lamps to the measuring devices.

    2.3.1.3. The fluorescent lamp must meet the specifications of a reference lamp as defined by ANSI C82.13 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) and be seasoned at least 12 hours.

    2.3.1.4. The ballast must be connected to the number of lamps equal to the maximum number of lamps the ballast is designed and marketed to operate.

    2.3.1.5. Ballasts designed and marketed to operate both 4-foot medium bipin lamps and 2-foot U-shaped lamps must be tested with 4-foot medium bipin lamps.

    2.3.1.6. With the exception of sign ballasts (described in section 2.3.1.7 and its subsections), ballasts designed and marketed to operate both T8 and T12 lamps must be tested with T8 lamps.

    2.3.1.7. For sign ballasts (as defined in section 1.18):

    2.3.1.7.1. Use a T8 lamp as specified in Table A of this section for sign ballasts that are designed and marketed to operate only T8 lamps.

    2.3.1.7.2. Use a T12 lamp as specified in Table A of this section for sign ballasts that are designed and marketed to operate only T12 lamps.

    2.3.1.7.3. Use a T12 lamp as specified in Table A of this section for sign ballasts that are designed and marketed to operate both T8 and T12 lamps.

    2.3.1.8. Test each ballast with the lamp type specified in Table A of this section that corresponds to the lamp diameter the ballast is designed and marketed to operate. Test each ballast with only one lamp type.

    Table A—Lamp-and-Ballast Pairings and Frequency Adjustment Factors Ballast type Lamp type Lamp diameter and base Nominal lamp wattage Frequency adjustment factor (β) Low frequency High frequency Ballasts that operate straight-shaped lamps (commonly referred to as 4-foot medium bipin lamps) with medium bipin bases and a nominal overall length of 48 inches T8 MBP
  • T12 MBP
  • 32
  • 34
  • 0.94
  • 0.93
  • 1.0
  • 1.0
  • Ballasts that operate U-shaped lamps (commonly referred to as 2-foot U-shaped lamps) with medium bipin bases and a nominal overall length between 22 and 25 inches T8 MBP
  • T12 MBP
  • 32
  • 34
  • 0.94
  • 0.93
  • 1.0
  • 1.0
  • Ballasts that operate rapid-start lamps (commonly referred to as 8-foot-high output lamps) with recessed double contact bases and a nominal overall length of 96 inches T8 HO RDC
  • T12 HO RDC
  • 86
  • 95
  • 0.92
  • 0.94
  • 1.0
  • 1.0
  • Ballasts that operate instant-start lamps (commonly referred to as 8-foot slimline lamps) with single pin bases and a nominal overall length of 96 inches T8 slimline SP
  • T12 slimline SP
  • 59
  • 60
  • 0.95
  • 0.94
  • 1.0
  • 1.0
  • Ballasts that operate straight-shaped lamps (commonly referred to as 4-foot miniature bipin standard output lamps) with miniature bipin bases and a nominal length between 45 and 48 inches T5 SO Mini-BP 28 0.95 1.0 Ballasts that operate straight-shaped lamps (commonly referred to as 4-foot miniature bipin high output lamps) with miniature bipin bases and a nominal length between 45 and 48 inches T5 HO Mini-BP 54 0.95 1.0 Sign ballasts that operate rapid-start lamps (commonly referred to as 8-foot high output lamps) with recessed double contact bases and a nominal overall length of 96 inches T8 HO RDC
  • T12 HO RDC
  • 86
  • * 110
  • 0.92
  • 0.94
  • 1.0
  • 1.0
  • MBP, Mini-BP, RDC, and SP represent medium bipin, miniature bipin, recessed double contact, and single pin, respectively. A ballast must be tested with only one lamp type based on the ballast type description and lamp diameter it is designed and marketed to operate. * Lamp type is commonly marketed as 110 W, however ANSI C78.81 Data Sheet lists nominal wattage of 113 W.
    2.3.2. Power Analyzer

    2.3.2.1. The power analyzer test setup must have n+1 channels where n is the number of lamps a ballast operates. Use the minimum number of power analyzers possible during testing. A system may be used to synchronize the power analyzers, and all power analyzers must be synchronized in time.

    2.3.2.2. Lamp Arc Voltage. Leads from the power analyzer should attach to each fluorescent lamp according to Figure 1 of this section for rapid- and programmed-start ballasts, Figure 2 of this section for instant-start ballasts operating single pin (SP) lamps, and Figure 3 of this section for instant-start ballasts operating medium bipin (MBP), miniature bipin (mini-BP), or recessed double contact (RDC) lamps. The programmed- and rapid-start ballast test setup includes two 1000 ohm resistors placed in parallel with the lamp pins to create a midpoint from which to measure lamp arc voltage.

    2.3.2.3. Lamp Arc Current. A current probe must be positioned on each fluorescent lamp according to Figure 1 for rapid- and programmed-start ballasts, Figure 2 of this section for instant-start ballasts operating SP lamps, and Figure 3 of this section for instant-start ballasts operating MBP, mini-BP, and RDC lamps.

    2.3.2.3.1. For the lamp arc current measurement, the full transducer ratio must be set in the power analyzer to match the current probe to the power analyzer.

    ER05JN15.026 Where: Iin is the current through the current transducer, Vout is the voltage out of the transducer, Rin is the power analyzer impedance, and Rs is the current probe output impedance. BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ER05JN15.027 BILLING CODE 6450-01-C 2.4. Test Conditions

    2.4.1. The test conditions for testing fluorescent lamp ballasts must be done in accordance with ANSI C82.2 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). DOE further specifies that the following revisions of the normative references indicated in ANSI C82.2 should be used in place of the references directly specified in ANSI C82.2: ANSI C78.81 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), ANSI C82.1 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), ANSI C82.3 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), ANSI C82.11 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), and ANSI C82.13 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). All other normative references must be as specified in ANSI C82.2.

    2.4.2. Room Temperature and Air Circulation. The test facility must be held at 25 ±2 °C, with minimal air movement as defined in ANSI C78.375 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).

    2.4.3. Input Voltage. Disregard the directions in ANSI C82.2 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3) section 4.1, and use the following directions for input voltage instead. For ballasts designed and marketed for operation at multiple voltages that are not residential ballasts, test the ballast at 277V ±0.1%. For residential ballasts designed and marketed for operation at multiple voltages, test the ballast at 120V ±0.1%. For sign ballasts designed and marketed for operation at multiple voltages, test the ballast at 120V ±0.1%. Ballasts designed and marketed for operation at only one input voltage must be tested at that specified voltage.

    2.5. Test Method

    2.5.1. Ballast Luminous Efficiency.

    2.5.1.1. The ballast must be connected to the appropriate fluorescent lamps and to measurement instrumentation as indicated by the Test Setup in section 2.3.

    2.5.1.2. The ballast must be operated at full output for at least 15 minutes but no longer than 1 hour until stable operating conditions are reached. Once this condition is reached, and with the ballast continuing to operate at full output, measure each of the parameters described in sections 2.5.1.3 through 2.5.1.9 concurrently.

    2.5.1.2.1. Stable operating conditions are determined by measuring lamp arc voltage, current, and power once per second in accordance with the setup described in section 2.3. Once the difference between the maximum and minimum values for lamp arc voltage, current, and power do not exceed one percent over a four minute moving window, the system is considered stable.

    2.5.1.3. Lamp Arc Voltage. Measure lamp arc voltage (volts) using the setup described in section 2.3.2.2.

    2.5.1.4. Lamp Arc Current. Measure lamp arc current (amps) using the setup described in section 2.3.2.3.

    2.5.1.5. Lamp Arc Power. The power analyzer must calculate output power by using the measurements described in sections 2.5.1.3 and 2.5.1.4.

    2.5.1.6. Input Power. Measure the input power (watts) to the ballast in accordance with ANSI C82.2 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), section 7.

    2.5.1.7. Input Voltage. Measure the input voltage (volts) (RMS) to the ballast in accordance with ANSI C82.2 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), section 3.2.1 and section 4.

    2.5.1.8. Input Current. Measure the input current (amps) (RMS) to the ballast in accordance with ANSI C82.2 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), section 3.2.1 and section 4.

    2.5.1.9. Lamp Operating Frequency. Measure the frequency of the waveform delivered from the ballast to any lamp in accordance with the setup in section 2.3.

    2.6. Calculations

    2.6.1. Calculate ballast luminous efficiency (BLE).

    ER05JN15.028 Where: Total Lamp Arc Power is the sum of the lamp arc powers for all lamps operated by the ballast as determined by section 2.5.1.5, Input Power is as determined by section 2.5.1.6, and β is equal to the frequency adjustment factor in Table A.

    2.6.2. Calculate Power Factor (PF).

    ER05JN15.029 Where: Input Power is determined in accordance with section 2.5.1.6, Input Voltage is determined in accordance with section 2.5.1.7, and Input Current is determined in accordance with section 2.5.1.8. 3. Standby Mode Procedure

    3.1. The measurement of standby mode power need not be performed to determine compliance with energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts at this time. On or after December 2, 2015, if a manufacturer makes any representations with respect to the standby mode power use of fluorescent lamp ballasts, then testing must also include the provisions of this test procedure related to standby mode energy consumption.

    3.2. Test Conditions

    3.2.1. The test conditions for testing fluorescent lamp ballasts must be established in accordance with ANSI C82.2 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). The test conditions for measuring standby power are described in sections 5, 7, and 8 of ANSI C82.2. Fluorescent lamp ballasts that are designed and marketed for connection to control devices must be tested with all commercially available compatible control devices connected in all possible configurations. For each configuration, a separate measurement of standby power must be made in accordance with section 3.3 of the test procedure.

    3.3. Test Method and Measurements

    3.3.1. The test for measuring standby mode energy consumption of fluorescent lamp ballasts must be done in accordance with ANSI C82.2 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).

    3.3.2. Send a signal to the ballast instructing it to have zero light output using the appropriate ballast communication protocol or system for the ballast being tested.

    3.3.3. Input Power. Measure the input power (watts) to the ballast in accordance with ANSI C82.2, section 13, (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).

    3.3.4. Control Signal Power. The power from the control signal path must be measured using all applicable methods described below.

    3.3.4.1. AC Control Signal. Measure the AC control signal power (watts), using a wattmeter (W), connected to the ballast in accordance with the circuit shown in Figure 4 of this section.

    ER05JN15.030

    3.3.4.2. DC Control Signal. Measure the DC control signal voltage, using a voltmeter (V), and current, using an ammeter (A), connected to the ballast in accordance with the circuit shown in Figure 5 of this section. The DC control signal power is calculated by multiplying the DC control signal voltage and the DC control signal current.

    ER05JN15.031

    3.3.4.3. Power Line Carrier (PLC) Control Signal. Measure the PLC control signal power (watts) using a wattmeter (W) connected to the ballast in accordance with the circuit shown in Figure 6 of this section. The wattmeter must have a frequency response that is at least 10 times higher than the PLC being measured in order to measure the PLC signal correctly. The wattmeter must also be high-pass filtered to filter out power at 60 Hertz.

    ER05JN15.032

    3.3.4.4. Wireless Control Signal. The power supplied to a ballast using a wireless signal is not easily measured but is estimated to be well below 1.0 watt. Therefore, the wireless control signal power is not measured as part of this test procedure.

    8. Section 430.32 is amended by revising paragraph (m) to read as follows:
    § 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their compliance dates.

    (m) Fluorescent lamp ballasts—(1) Standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts (other than dimming ballasts). Except as provided in paragraphs (m)(2) and (3) of this section, each fluorescent lamp ballast manufactured on or after November 14, 2014,

    (i) Designed and marketed—

    (A) To operate at nominal input voltages at or between 120 and 277 volts;

    (B) To operate with an input current frequency of 60 Hertz; and

    (C) For use in connection with fluorescent lamps (as defined in § 430.2)

    (ii) Must have—

    (A) A power factor of:

    (1) 0.9 or greater for ballasts that are not residential ballasts; or

    (2) 0.5 or greater for residential ballasts; and

    (B) A ballast luminous efficiency not less than the following:

    BLE = A/(1 + B × average total lamp arc power ^ −C) Where A, B, and C are as follows: Description A B C Instant start and rapid start ballasts (not classified as residential ballasts) that are designed and marketed to operate: 4-foot medium bipin lamps; 0.993 0.27 0.25 2-foot U-shaped lamps; or 8-foot slimline lamps. Programmed start ballasts (not classified as residential ballasts) that are designed and marketed to operate: 4-foot medium bipin lamps; 0.993 0.51 0.37 2-foot U-shaped lamps; 4-foot miniature bipin standard output lamps; or 4-foot miniature bipin high output lamps. Instant start and rapid start ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that are designed and marketed to operate 8-foot high output lamps 0.993 0.38 0.25 Programmed start ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that are designed and marketed to operate 8-foot high output lamps 0.973 0.70 0.37 Sign ballasts that are designed and marketed to operate 8-foot high output lamps 0.993 0.47 0.25 Instant start and rapid start residential ballasts that are designed and marketed to operate: 4-foot medium bipin lamps; 0.993 0.41 0.25 2-foot U-shaped lamps; or 8-foot slimline lamps. Programmed start residential ballasts that are designed and marketed to operate: 4-foot medium bipin lamps or 0.973 0.71 0.37 2-foot U-shaped lamps.

    (2) Standards for certain dimming ballasts. Except as provided in paragraph (m)(3) of this section, each dimming ballast manufactured on or after November 14, 2014; designed and marketed to operate one F34T12, two F34T12, two F96T12/ES, or two F96T12HO/ES lamps; and

    (i) Designed and marketed—

    (A) To operate at nominal input voltages at or between 120 and 277 volts;

    (B) To operate with an input current frequency of 60 Hertz; and

    (C) For use in connection with fluorescent lamps (as defined in § 430.2)

    (ii) Must have—

    (A) A power factor of:

    (1) 0.9 or greater for ballasts that are not residential ballasts; or

    (2) 0.5 or greater for residential ballasts; and

    (B) A ballast luminous efficiency not less than the following:

    Designed and marketed for operation of a maximum of Nominal input
  • voltage
  • Total nominal lamp watts Ballast luminous efficiency Low frequency ballasts High frequency ballasts
    One F34T12 lamp 120/277 34 0.777 0.778 Two F34T12 lamps 120/277 68 0.804 0.805 Two F96T12/ES lamps 120/277 120 0.876 0.884 Two F96T12HO/ES lamps 120/277 190 0.711 0.713

    (3) Exemptions. The power factor and ballast luminous efficiency standards described in paragraph (m)(1)(ii) and (m)(2)(ii) of this section do not apply to:

    (i) A dimming ballast designed and marketed to operate exclusively lamp types other than one F34T12, two F34T12, two F96T12/ES, or two F96T12HO/ES lamps;

    (ii) A low frequency ballast that is designed and marketed to operate T8 diameter lamps; is designed and marketed for use in electromagnetic-interference-sensitive-environments only; and is shipped by the manufacturer in packages containing 10 or fewer ballasts; or

    (iii) A programmed start ballast that operates 4-foot medium bipin T8 lamps and delivers on average less than 140 milliamperes to each lamp.

    (4) For the purposes of this paragraph (m), the definitions found in appendix Q of subpart B of this part apply.

    [FR Doc. 2015-13783 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 95 [Docket No. 31021; Amdt. No. 520] IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument conditions in the affected areas.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard A. Dunham, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

    The Rule

    The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Conclusion

    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. 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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95

    Airspace, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 22, 2015. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015.

    PART 95—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 44721.

    2. Part 95 is amended to read as follows: Revisions to IFR Altitudes & Changeover Point [Amendment 520 effective date June 25, 2015] From To MEA § 95.6001 Victor Routes-U.S. § 95.6071 VOR Federal Airway V71 Is Amended To Read in Part Fighting Tiger, LA VORTAC Wrack, LA FIX * 2200 * 1800—MOCA § 95.6140 VOR Federal Airway V140 Is Amended To Read in Part Panhandle, TX VORTAC Zesus, TX FIX * 5800 * 5000—MOCA § 95.6145 VOR Federal Airway V145 Is Amended To Read in Part Utica, NY VORTAC Weepy, NY FIX 3400 Floor, NY FIX Watertown, NY VORTAC 3000 § 95.6195 VOR Federal Airway V195 Is Amended To Read in Part Manteca, CA VOR/DME Tracy, CA FIX * 4100 * 2900—MOCA Tracy, CA FIX * Sunol, CA FIX 5200 * 4700—MCA Sunol, CA FIX, NE BND Croit, CA FIX * Cordd, CA FIX ** 5000 * 7200—MCA Cordd, CA FIX, N BND ** 3400—MOCA Burrs, CA FIX * Tomad, CA FIX ** 6000 * 7000—MRA * 7300—MCA Tomad, CA FIX, W BND ** 4600—MOCA * Tomad, CA FIX Yager, CA FIX ** 11000 * 7000—MRA ** 8300—MOCA § 95.6258 VOR Federal Airway V258 Is Amended To Read in Part Charleston, WV VORTAC Beckley, WV VORTAC #* 5000 * 4900—MOCA #HVQ Restriction Unusable 140-142 BYD 20—BLO 9000 Beckley, WV VORTAC Zooms, WV FIX * 10000 * 6300—MOCA * 6300—GNSS MEA § 95.6296 VOR Federal Airway V296 Is Amended To Read in Part Fayetteville, NC VOR/DME Wilmington, NC VORTAC #* 3000 * 2100—MOCA #Wilmnington R-315 Unusable, Use Fayetteville R-131 § 95.6402 VOR Federal Airway V402 Is Amended To Read in Part Panhandle, TX VORTAC * Brisc, TX FIX ** 7000 * 7000—MCA Brisc, TX FIX, SW BND ** 5000—MOCA § 95.6440 VOR Federal Airway V440 Is Amended To Read in Part Panhandle, TX VORTAC * Brisc, TX FIX ** 7000 * 7000—MCA Brisc, TX FIX, SW BND ** 5000—MOCA § 95.6350 Alaska VOR Federal Airway V350 Is Amended To Read in Part Togiak, AK NDB/DME Bafin, AK FIX 5400 Bafin, AK FIX Bethel, AK VORTAC SE BND 5400 NW BND 2000
    [FR Doc. 2015-13823 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 [Docket No. SSA-2015-0017] RIN 0960-AH83 Extension of Sunset Date for Attorney Advisor Program AGENCY:

    Social Security Administration.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are extending for 2 years our rule authorizing attorney advisors to conduct certain prehearing procedures and to issue fully favorable decisions. The current rule will expire on August 7, 2015. In this final rule, we are extending the sunset date to August 4, 2017. We are making no other substantive changes.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective June 5, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rainbow Lloyd, Social Security Administration, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3260, 703-605-7100 for information about this final rule. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background of the Attorney Advisor Program

    On August 9, 2007, we issued an interim final rule permitting some attorney advisors to conduct certain prehearing procedures and issue decisions that are fully favorable when the documentary record warrants. 72 FR 44763. We instituted this practice to provide more timely service to the increasing number of applicants for Social Security disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments based on disability. We considered the public comments we received on the interim final rule and, on March 3, 2008, we issued a final rule without changes. 73 FR 11349. Under this rule, some attorney advisors may develop claims and, in appropriate cases, issue fully favorable decisions before a hearing.

    We originally intended the attorney advisor program to be a temporary modification to our procedures. Therefore, we included in sections 404.942(g) and 416.1442(g) of the interim final rule a provision that the program would end on August 10, 2009, unless we decided to either terminate the rule earlier or extend it beyond that date by publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. Since that time, we have periodically extended the sunset date; as we noted above, the current sunset date for the program is August 7, 2015. 78 FR 45460.

    Explanation of Extension

    When we published the final rules reinstating the attorney advisor program in 2008, we discussed a variety of concerns about the program and we stated our intent to closely monitor it and to make changes to the program if it did not meet our expectations. 73 FR 11349, 11350, 11351, and 11352.

    We explained in the final rule in 2008 that the number of requests for hearings has increased significantly in recent years. We anticipate that we will continue to receive a high number of requests for hearings. The attorney advisor program has assisted our efforts to reduce the backlog of pending hearing requests, and we believe that the program should continue at this time.

    In order to preserve the maximum degree of flexibility we need to effectively manage our hearings-level workloads, we have decided to extend the attorney advisor rule for another 2 years, until August 4, 2017. As before, we reserve the authority to end the program earlier or to extend it by publishing a final rule in the Federal Register.

    Regulatory Procedures Justification for Issuing Final Rule Without Notice and Comment

    We follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 when developing regulations. Section 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5). The APA provides exceptions to its notice and public comment procedures when an agency finds there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures because they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. We have determined that good cause exists for dispensing with the notice and public comment procedures for this rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Good cause exists because this final rule only extends the sunset date of an existing rule. It makes no substantive changes to the rule. The current regulations expressly provide that we may extend or terminate this rule. Therefore, we have determined that opportunity for prior comment is unnecessary, and we are issuing this rule as a final rule.

    In addition, because we are not making any substantive changes to the existing rule, we find that there is good cause for dispensing with the 30-day delay in the effective date of a substantive rule provided by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). To ensure that we have uninterrupted authority to use attorney advisors to reduce the number of pending cases at the hearing level, we find that it is in the public interest to make this final rule effective on the date of publication.

    Executive Order 12866 as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

    We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this final rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals only. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, does not require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security—Survivors Insurance; 96.006, Supplemental Security Income.) List of Subjects 20 CFR Part 404

    Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-age, Survivors and Disability Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security.

    20 CFR Part 416

    Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

    Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend subpart J of part 404 and subpart N of part 416 of Chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

    PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950- ) Subpart J—[Amended] 1. The authority citation for subpart J of part 404 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 404(f), 405(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 421, 423(i), 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97-455, 96 Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)-(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42 U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

    2. In § 404.942, revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 404.942 Prehearing proceedings and decisions by attorney advisors.

    (g) Sunset provision. The provisions of this section will no longer be effective on August 4, 2017, unless we terminate them earlier or extend them beyond that date by notice of a final rule in the Federal Register.

    PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED Subpart N—[Amended] 3. The authority citation for subpart N continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

    4. In § 416.1442, revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 416.1442 Prehearing proceedings and decisions by attorney advisors.

    (g) Sunset provision. The provisions of this section will no longer be effective on August 4, 2017, unless we terminate them earlier or extend them beyond that date by notice of a final rule in the Federal Register.

    [FR Doc. 2015-13768 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Indian Gaming Commission 25 CFR Parts 502, 513, 514, 516, 522, 531, 533, 535, 556, 559, 571, 573, 575, and 580 RIN 3141-AA50, 3141-AA25, 3141-AA40, 3141-AA20, 3141-AA23, 3141-AA46, 3141-AA58, 3141-AA13, 3141-AA63, 3141-AA48, 3141-AA49, 3141-AA50, 3141-AA08, 3141-AA47 Various National Indian Gaming Commission Regulations AGENCY:

    National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission) makes corrections to various regulations previously issued. The Commission recently moved its headquarters resulting in the need to update the Commission's mailing address. Additionally, the current regulations contain outdated references to previous regulations that no longer exist. The amendments also correct various minor grammatical errors.

    DATES:

    Effective June 22, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    NIGC Attn: Maria Getoff, Senior Attorney, C/O Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240, or by telephone at 202-632-7003.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or the Act), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., was signed into law on October 17, 1988. The Act established the Commission and set out a comprehensive framework for the regulation of gaming on Indian lands. The purposes of the Act include: Providing a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments; ensuring that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation; and declaring that the establishment of independent federal regulatory authority for gaming on Indian lands, the establishment of federal standards for gaming on Indian lands, and the establishment of a National Indian Gaming Commission are necessary to meet congressional concerns regarding gaming and to protect such gaming as a means of generating tribal revenue. 25 U.S.C. 2702.

    II. Previous Rulemaking Activity

    On August 9, 2012, the Commission published a final rule amending 25 CFR part 573 (Compliance and Enforcement) to include a graduated pre-enforcement process through which a tribe may come into voluntary compliance. 77 FR 47517, Aug. 9, 2012. This document updates references in 25 CFR part 514 that are no longer accurate due to those amendments.

    On September 25, 2012, the Commission published a final rule consolidating all appeal proceedings before the Commission into a (then) new subchapter H (Appeal Proceedings Before the Commission), thereby removing former parts 524, 539, and 577. 77 FR 58941, Sept. 25, 2012. This document updates 25 CFR parts 513, 514, 522, 533, 535, 571, 573, and 575 to remove references to those parts no longer in existence.

    On January 25, 2013, the Commission published a final rule amending 25 CFR parts 556 and 558 (Background investigations and Gaming Licenses for Key Employees and Primary Management Officials) to streamline certain submissions to the Commission and to ensure that certain tribal notifications comply with the Act. 78 FR 5276, Jan 25. 2013. This document updates 25 CFR part 573 to reflect the amendments to those parts.

    In June of 2014, the Commission relocated its headquarters. This document updates the mailing address contained within 25 CFR parts 514 and 516. The Commission also identified minor grammatical errors in certain other regulations and now corrects those errors.

    III. Corrections 25 CFR Part 502—Definitions of This Chapter

    This document revises the definition of “Chairman” in 25 CFR 502.1 to include the word “Chair.” This reflects the gender-neutral term that occurs elsewhere in the Commission's regulations. No substantive change is intended with this correction.

    25 CFR Part 513—Debt Collection

    This document revises 25 CFR 513.4(b) and 513.32(a) to remove references to the appeal procedures formerly found at 25 CFR part 577 (which no longer exists). It now references the appeal procedure at 25 CFR parts 580-585. This document also corrects a grammatical error in § 513.32(a): In the third sentence, the first “matters” is corrected to the singular “matter,” while the second “matters” remains plural.

    25 CFR Part 514—Fees

    This document revises 25 CFR 514.8 and 514.17(c) to reflect the Commission's new mailing address. This document also amends 25 CFR 514.10 to revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to correct a reference from “25 CFR 573.6(a)(2)” to “25 CFR 573.4(a)(2).”

    25 CFR Part 516—Testimony of Current and Former Commissioners and NIGC Employees; Response to Subpoenas

    The document revises 25 CFR 516.4(b) to reflect the Commission's new mailing address.

    25 CFR Part 522—Submission of Gaming Ordinance or Resolution

    This document revises 25 CFR 522.5 and 522.7(a), (b) to remove references to 25 CFR part 524 (which no longer exists) and replaces them with references to 25 CFR part 582. This document also revises 25 CFR 522.10(c) and (f) to make minor grammatical changes. In paragraph (c), “Tribe” is changed to “tribe”; in paragraph (f), a comma is placed after “limits.”

    25 CFR Part 531—Content of Management Contracts

    This document amends 25 CFR 531.1 to revise paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(16) by making minor grammatical changes and by clarifying certain requirements. In paragraph (b)(4), a comma is placed after “training”; in paragraph (b)(6), the word “gaming” is added before “operation's”; and in paragraph (b)(16), the phrase “National Indian Gaming Commission” is replaced with the word “Commission.” No substantive change is intended by these corrections.

    25 CFR Part 533—Approval of Management Contracts

    This document revises 25 CFR 533.2 to remove a reference to 25 CFR part 539 (which no longer exists) and replaces it with a reference to 25 CFR part 583. The document also amends 25 CFR 533.3, revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) to make minor grammatical changes. In paragraph (a)(1), the word “and” is added to the end of the sentence; and in paragraph (a)(2), the word “and” is removed and replaced with a period. The document also revises 25 CFR 533.6(b)(3) to make a minor grammatical change, replacing “this” with “the.”

    25 CFR Part 535—Post-Approval Procedures

    This document revises 25 CFR 535.1(d)(2) to make a minor grammatical change. In paragraph (d)(2), a semicolon at the end of the paragraph is replaced with a period. This document also revises 25 CFR 535.1(d)(3) by removing references to “part 539” (which no longer exists) and replacing it with references to “part 583.” This document also revises 25 CFR 535.3 to remove a reference to “part 577” and to replace it with a reference to “parts 584 or 585.” A minor grammatical change is also made to the second sentence of § 535.3, replacing the word “void” with “voiding.” No substantive change is intended by this correction.

    25 CFR Part 556—Background Investigations of Primary Management Officials and Key Employees

    This document revises 25 CFR 556.2(a) to make a minor grammatical change by adding a comma after the word “criminal.” This document also revises 25 CFR 556.5(a)(3) by adding a comma after the word “habits.” Finally, this document revises 25 CFR 556.8 by removing the word “the” before “February” and adding a comma after “2013.”

    25 CFR Part 559—Facility License Notification and Submissions

    This document revises 25 CFR 559.1(a) by changing “obtain” to “obtains.” This document also revises 25 CFR 559.4 by adding a comma after the word “standards.” Finally, to mirror the language in the regulation, this document revises 25 CFR 559.5 by changing the section title from “Does a tribe need to” to “Must a tribe.”

    25 CFR Part 571—Monitoring and Investigations

    This document revises the second sentence of 25 CFR 571.3 by replacing the language “under part 577 of this chapter is addressed in § 577.8” with “is addressed in § 584.9.” This change is required because part 577 no longer exists and was replaced by the language found in 25 CFR part 584. The document revises 25 CFR 571.4 by replacing “NIGC” with “the Commission.” This change is intended to create uniformity in the agency's regulations. Additionally, 25 CFR 571.4 is revised to add “or resolution” after the word “ordinance.” Finally, this document revises 25 CFR 571.11 by removing a reference to a nonexistent “part 577” and replacing it with “part 584.”

    25 CFR Part 573—Compliance and Enforcement

    This document revises 25 CFR 573.1 by making a minor grammatical change. Specifically, “notice” is now changed to “notices.” Section 573.2(a) is revised by removing the word “respondent” from the regulation because the regulation does not involve official agency action, and therefore no “respondent” exists. No substantive change occurs as a result of this revision. In addition, 25 CFR 573.4 is amended to revise paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(5), (a)(10), and (c)(3). Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) is revised by replacing “provides” with “is served with.” A minor grammatical change is made to paragraph (a)(5), removing the phrase “having been,” as this change helps make the regulation easier to read. A minor grammatical change is also made to paragraph (a)(10), replacing “Indian Gaming Regulatory Act” with “the Act.” Paragraph (a)(10) is also revised to replace references to “§ 558.2” with “§ 556.5,” and “§ 558.5” with “§ 558.4.” Finally, paragraph (c)(3) is revised to replace a reference to “subchapter H,” with a reference to “parts 584 or 585” for clarity.

    25 CFR Part 575—Civil Fines

    This document amends 25 CFR 575.6 to revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) to replace references to “part 577” (which no longer exists) with references to “parts 584 or 585.” This document also revises 25 CFR 575.9 to replace references to “part 577” (which no longer exists) with references to “parts 584 or 585.” Section 575.9 is also revised by renumbering it to “575.7” due to a previous numbering error in the regulations.

    25 CFR Part 580—Rules of General Application in Appeal Proceedings Before the Commission

    This document revises 25 CFR 580.6 by making a minor grammatical change, replacing “in” with “from.” This document also revises 25 CFR 580.12 by replacing “NIGC” with “Commission” to create uniformity in the agency's regulations.

    IV. Certain Findings

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required when an agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comments are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Because the revisions here are technical in nature and intended solely to update the Commission's current mailing address, to correct outdated references, and to correct minor grammatical errors, the Commission is publishing a technical amendment.

    V. Regulatory Matters Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. Indian tribes are not considered to be small entities for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies or geographic regions, and does not have a significant adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency, is exempt from compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502(1); 2 U.S.C. 658(1).

    Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission determined this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The Commission has determined that this rule does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that a detailed statement is not required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements contained in these rules were previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and assigned the following OMB control numbers with the applicable expiration dates: (i) 3141-0001, expires on October 31, 2016; (ii) 3141-0003, expires on October 31, 2016; (iii) 3141-0004, expires on October 31, 2015; (iv) 3141-0007, expires on November 30, 2015; and (v) 3141-0012, expires on October 31, 2015.

    List of Subjects 25 CFR Part 502

    Gaming, Indians-lands.

    25 CFR Part 513

    Claims, Gambling, Government employees, Income taxes, Wages.

    25 CFR Part 514

    Gambling, Indians-lands, Indians-tribal government, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    25 CFR Part 516

    Administrative practice and procedure, Gambling, Indians-lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    25 CFR Part 522

    Gambling, Indians-lands, Indians-tribal government, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    25 CFR Part 531

    Gambling, Indians-lands, Indians-tribal government, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    25 CFR Part 533

    Gambling, Indians-lands, Indians-tribal government, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    25 CFR Part 535

    Gambling, Indians-lands, Indians-tribal government, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    25 CFR Part 556

    Gaming, Indians-lands.

    25 CFR Part 559

    Gambling, Indians-lands, Indians-tribal government, Notification and submission requirements-facility licenses.

    25 CFR Part 571

    Gambling, Indians-lands, Indians-tribal government, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    25 CFR Part 573

    Enforcement, Enforcement actions, Gambling, Gaming, Indians, Indians-gaming.

    25 CFR Part 575

    Gaming, Indians-lands, Fines.

    25 CFR Part 580

    Appeals, Gambling, Indians-lands.

    For the reasons set forth in the Preamble, the Commission revises 25 CFR parts 502, 513, 514, 516, 522, 531, 533, 535, 556, 559, 571, 573, 575, and 580 as follows:

    PART 502—DEFINITIONS OF THIS CHAPTER 1. The authority citation for part 502 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.

    2. Revise § 502.1 to read as follows:
    § 502.1 Chairman (Chair).

    Chairman (Chair) means the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission or his or her designee.

    PART 513—DEBT COLLECTION 3. The authority citation for part 513 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    31 U.S.C. 3711, 3716-3718, 3720A, 3720D; 5 U.S.C. 5514; 25 U.S.C. 2713(a)(1).

    § 513.4 [Amended]
    4. In § 513.4(b), remove the phrase “part 577” and add in its place the phrase “parts 580 through 585”.
    § 513.32 [Amended]
    5. In the last sentence of § 513.32(a), remove the phrase “part 577” and add in its place the phrase “parts 580 through 585”.
    PART 514—FEES 6. The authority citation for part 514 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 2706, 2710, 2717, 2717a.

    7. Revise the first sentence of § 514.8 to read as follows:
    § 514.8 Where should fees, quarterly statements, and other communications about fees be sent?

    The statements, remittances, and communications about fees shall be transmitted to the Commission at the following address: NIGC Attn: Comptroller, C/O Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240. * * *

    § 514.10 [Amended]
    8. In § 514.10, remove the phrase “573.6(a)(2)” everywhere it appears and add in its place the phrase “573.4(a)(2)”. 9. Revise the first sentence of § 514.17(c) to read as follows:
    § 514.17 How are fingerprint processing fees collected by the Commission?

    (c) Fingerprint fees shall be sent to the following address: NIGC Attn: Comptroller, C/O Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240. * * *

    PART 516—TESTIMONY OF COMMISSIONERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FORMER COMMISSIONERS AND FORMER EMPLOYEES RESPECTING OFFICIAL DUTIES; RESPONSE TO SUBPOENA 10. The authority citation for part 516 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 25 U.S.C. 2706; 25 U.S.C. 2716(a); 18 U.S.C. 1905.

    11. Revise § 516.4(b) to read as follows:
    § 516.4 How are records certified or authenticated?

    (b) A request for certified copies of records or for authentication of copies of records shall be sent to the following address: NIGC Attn: Freedom of Information Act Officer, C/O Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240.

    PART 522—SUBMISSION OF GAMING ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION 12. The authority citation for part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 2706, 2710, 2712.

    § 522.5 [Amended]
    13. In § 522.5, remove the phrase “part 524” everywhere it appears and add in its place the phrase “part 582”.
    § 522.7 [Amended]
    14. In § 522.7, remove the phrase “part 524” everywhere it appears and add in its place the phrase “part 582”.
    § 522.10 [Amended]
    15. In § 522.10: a. In paragraph (c), remove the word “Tribe” and add in its place the word “tribe”. b. In paragraph (f), add a comma after the word “limits”.
    PART 531—CONTENT OF MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS 16. The authority citation for part 531 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 81, 2706(b)(10), 2710(d)(9), 2711.

    § 531.1 [Amended]
    17. In § 531.1: a. In paragraph (b)(4), add a comma after the word “training”. b. In paragraph (b)(6), add the word “gaming” before the word “operation's”. c. In paragraph (b)(16), remove the words “National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC, or the Commission)” and add in their place the word “Commission”.
    PART 533—APPROVAL OF MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS 18. The authority citation for part 533 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 81, 2706(b)(10), 2710(d)(9), 2711.

    § 533.2 [Amended]
    19. In the last sentence of § 533.2, remove the phrase “part 539” and add in its place the phrase “part 583”.
    § 533.3 [Amended]
    20. In § 533.3: a. In paragraph (a)(1), add the word “and” after “contractor;”. b. In paragraph (a)(2), remove “; and” and add a period in its place.
    § 533.6 [Amended]
    21. In § 533.6(b)(3), remove the words “this Act” and add in its place the words “the Act”.
    PART 535—POST-APPROVAL PROCEDURES 22. The authority citation for part 535 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 81, 2706(b)(10), 2710(d)(9), 2711.

    § 535.1 [Amended]
    23. In § 535.1: a. In paragraph (d)(2), remove the semicolon at the end of the sentence and add a period in its place. b. In paragraph (d)(3), remove the phrase “part 539” everywhere it appears and add in its place the phrase “part 583”.
    § 535.3 [Amended]
    24. In § 535.3: a. Remove the phrase “part 577” and add in its place the phrase “part 584 or part 585”. b. In the second sentence, remove the word “void” and add in its place the word “voiding”.
    PART 556—BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS FOR PRIMARY MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS AND KEY EMPLOYEES 25. The authority citation for part 556 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 2706, 2710, 2712.

    § 556.2 [Amended]
    26. In § 556.2(a), add a comma after the word “criminal”.
    § 556.5 [Amended]
    27. In § 556.5(a)(3) add a comma after the word “habits”.
    § 556.8 [Amended]
    28. In the first sentence of § 556.8, remove the word “the” before the word “February”.
    PART 559—FACILITY LICENSE NOTIFICATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS 29. The authority citation for part 559 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 2701, 2702(3), 2703(4), 2705, 2706(b)(10), 2710, 2719.

    § 559.1 [Amended]
    30. In § 559.1(a), remove the word “obtain” and add in its place the word “obtains”.
    § 559.4 [Amended]
    31. In the last sentence of § 559.4, add a comma after the word “standards”.
    § 559.5 [Amended]
    32. In the section heading to § 559.5, remove the phrase “Does a tribe need to” and add in its place the phrase “Must a tribe”.
    PART 571—MONITORING AND INVESTIGATIONS 33. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 2706(b), 2710(b)(2)(C), 2715, 2716.

    34. Revise the last sentence of § 571.3 to read as follows:
    § 571.3 Confidentiality.

    * * * The confidentiality of documents submitted in a multiple-party proceeding is addressed in § 584.9 of this chapter.

    § 571.4 [Amended]
    35. In § 571.4: a. In the first sentence, remove the word “NIGC” and add in its place the word “Commission”. b. Add the phrase “or resolution” after the word “ordinance”.
    § 571.11 [Amended]
    36. In § 571.11(a), remove the phrase “part 577” and add in its place the phrase “part 584”.
    PART 573—COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 37. The authority citation for part 573 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10), 2713; E.O. 13175, 65 FR 67249, 3 CFR, 2000 Comp., p.304.

    § 573.1 [Amended]
    38. In the last sentence in § 573.1, remove the word “notice” and add in its place the word “notices”.
    39. Revise the first sentence of § 573.2(a) to read as follows:
    § 573.2 When may a letter of concern be issued?

    (a) Prior to the Chair taking an enforcement action, a letter of concern may be provided by NIGC staff, detailing concerns regarding compliance with the Act, this chapter, or any tribal ordinance or resolution approved by the Chair under part 522 of this chapter. * * *

    § 573.4 [Amended]
    40. In § 573.4: a. In paragraph (a)(1)(ii), remove the word “provides” and add in its place the phrase, “is served with”. b. In paragraph (a)(5), remove the phrase “having been”. c. In paragraph (a)(10), remove “558.2” and add in its place “556.5” and remove “558.5” and add in its place “558.4”. d. In paragraph (c)(3), remove “subchapter H” and add in its place “part 584 or part 585”.
    PART 575—CIVIL FINES 41. The authority citation for part 575 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 2705(a), 2706, 2713, 2715.

    § 575.6 [Amended]
    42. In § 575.6, remove “part 577” everywhere it appears and add in its place “part 584 or part 585”.
    § 575.9 [Redesignated as § 575.7]
    43. Redesignate § 575.9 as § 575.7, and in newly redesignated § 575.7(a), remove “part 577” and add in its place “part 584 or part 585”.
    PART 580—COMPLIANCE RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 44. The authority citation for part 580 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    25 U.S.C. 2706, 2713, 2715.

    § 580.6 [Amended]
    45. In the last sentence of § 580.6, remove the phrase “in the computation” and add in its place the phrase “from the computation”.
    § 580.12 [Amended]
    46. In the first sentence of § 580.12, remove the acronym “NIGC” and add in its place the word “Commission”.
    Dated: May 28, 2015. Jonodev O. Chaudhuri, Chairman. Daniel J. Little, Associate Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13645 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7565-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9713] RIN 1545-BL46; RIN 1545-BM60 Reporting for Premium; Basis Reporting by Securities Brokers and Basis Determination for Debt Instruments and Options; Correction AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Temporary regulations; correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains amendments to temporary regulations relating to information reporting by brokers for transfers of debt instruments. The amendments change the applicability date of the temporary regulations for reporting certain information on a transfer statement from June 30, 2015, to January 1, 2016. The amendments to the temporary regulations will provide guidance to brokers and their customers.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: These amendments are effective on June 5, 2015.

    Applicability Date: For the date of applicability, see § 1.6045A-1T(f), as corrected.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Lew at (202) 317-7053 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The temporary regulations that are the subject of these amendments are under section 6045A of the Internal Revenue Code. The temporary regulations (TD 9713) were published in the Federal Register on Friday, March 13, 2015 (80 FR 13233).

    Need for Amendments

    Under § 1.6045A-1, a broker is required to provide certain information relating to a transfer of a debt instrument that is a covered security on a transfer statement. Section 1.6045A-1T(f) requires a broker to provide certain additional information on the transfer statement. Section 1.6045A-1T(f) applies to a transfer that occurs on or after June 30, 2015. After the publication of the temporary regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS received comments requesting that the applicability date of the regulations be delayed until January 1, 2016. In response to these comments, this document amends the applicability date to make the regulations apply to transfers that occur on or after January 1, 2016.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.6045A-1T is amended by: 1. Revising the second sentence in paragraph (f). 2. Adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (f).

    The revision and addition read as follows:

    § 1.6045A-1T Statements of information required in connection with transfers of securities (temporary).

    (f) * * * This paragraph (f) applies to a transfer that occurs on or after January 1, 2016. A broker, however, may rely on this paragraph (f) for a transfer of a covered security that occurs on or after June 30, 2015, and before January 1, 2016.

    Martin V. Franks, Branch Chief, Publications & Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure & Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2015-13796 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9721] RIN 1545-BM17 Segregation Rule Effective Date AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains final regulations under section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) that modify the effective date provision of recently published regulations. These regulations affect corporations whose stock is or was acquired by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) pursuant to certain programs under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: These regulations are effective on June 5, 2015.

    Applicability Date: For dates of applicability, see § 1.382-3(j)(17).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen R. Cleary, (202) 317-5353 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions Section 382

    Section 382 of the Code provides that the taxable income of a loss corporation for a year following an ownership change may be offset by pre-change losses only to the extent of the section 382 limitation for such year. An ownership change occurs with respect to a corporation if it is a loss corporation on a testing date and, immediately after the close of the testing date, the percentage of stock of the corporation owned by one or more 5-percent shareholders has increased by more than 50 percentage points over the lowest percentage of stock of such corporation owned by such shareholders at any time during the testing period. A testing date is any date on which occurs any change in the ownership of loss corporation stock that affects the percentage of stock owned by any 5-percent shareholder (owner shift).

    Pursuant to section 382(g)(4)(A), shareholders who own less than five percent of a loss corporation are aggregated and treated as a single 5-percent shareholder (a public group). In addition, new public groups may be created as a result of certain transactions under the segregation rules in the section 382 regulations. Any new public group is tracked separately from, and in addition to, the public group or groups that existed previously and is treated as a new 5-percent shareholder that increases its ownership interest in the loss corporation.

    One particular segregation rule, which was imposed by § 1.382-2T(j)(3)(i) of the Temporary Income Tax Regulations until it was superseded, required segregation when an individual or entity that owned five percent or more of the loss corporation transferred an interest in the loss corporation to public shareholders. After the sale, stock owned by a public group that existed immediately before the sale was treated separately from the stock owned by the public group that acquired stock from the seller. This separate public group was treated as a new 5-percent shareholder. However, this rule was rendered inoperative by § 1.382-3(j)(13), part of a set of regulations published in TD 9638 [78 FR 62418] on October 22, 2013. Under the new regulation, no new public group is created on the transfer of stock to the public shareholders; instead, the transferred stock is treated as acquired proportionately by the public groups existing at the time of the transfer.

    Notice 2010-2 (2010-2 IRB 251 (December 16, 2009)) (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this chapter) provides guidance regarding the application of section 382 and other provisions of law to corporations whose instruments are acquired and disposed of by the Treasury pursuant to EESA. Notice 2010-2 relates to instruments acquired by Treasury pursuant to the following EESA programs: (i) The Capital Purchase Program for publicly-traded issuers; (ii) the Capital Purchase Program for private issuers; (iii) the Capital Purchase Program for S corporations; (iv) the Targeted Investment Program; (v) the Asset Guarantee Program; (vi) the Systemically Significant Failing Institutions Program; (vii) the Automotive Industry Financing Program; and (viii) the Capital Assistance Program for publicly-traded issuers. (These programs are collectively referred to as “Programs” in that Notice and in this preamble.)

    Under Section III(G) of Notice 2010-2, a “Covered Instrument” is an instrument that is acquired by Treasury in exchange for an instrument that was issued to Treasury under the Programs, or is acquired by Treasury in exchange for another Covered Instrument. For most purposes of that Notice, a Covered Instrument is treated as though it had been issued directly to Treasury under the Programs.

    Section III(E) of Notice 2010-2 provides the following rule to govern the sale by Treasury of stock of a corporation to public shareholders:

    Section 382 treatment of stock sold by Treasury to public shareholders. If Treasury sells stock that was issued to it pursuant to the Programs (either directly or upon the exercise of a warrant) and the sale creates a public group (“New Public Group”), the New Public Group's ownership in the issuing corporation shall not be considered to have increased solely as a result of such a sale. A New Public Group's ownership shall be treated as having increased to the extent the New Public Group increases its ownership pursuant to any transaction other than a sale of stock by Treasury, including pursuant to a stock issuance described in § 1.382-3(j)(2) or a redemption (see § 1.382-2T(j)(2)(iii)(C)). Such stock is considered outstanding for purposes of determining the percentage of stock owned by other 5-percent shareholders on any testing date, and section 382 (and the regulations thereunder) shall otherwise apply to the New Public Group in the same manner as with respect to other public groups.

    This rule was created to prevent a loss corporation from experiencing an owner shift when Treasury sells stock to public shareholders. By its terms, the rule relies on the assumption that the stock sale “creates a public group.” As explained earlier in this preamble, § 1.382-2T(j)(3)(i), before it was superseded, required creation of a new public group when a 5-percent shareholder sold stock in a loss corporation to public shareholders. However, under § 1.382-3(j)(13) as now in effect, such a transfer does not create a new public group.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS became concerned that the elimination of the segregation rule described earlier in this preamble may have unintentionally rendered inoperative the rule in Notice 2010-2 that protects a loss corporation from an owner shift when Treasury sells stock that it held pursuant to the Programs to public shareholders.

    The Temporary Regulations

    On July 31, 2014, the Treasury Department and the IRS published final and temporary regulations (TD 9685) in the Federal Register (79 FR 44280). The temporary regulations modified the effective/applicability date rule of TD 9638 to except from the changes to the segregation rules in those regulations the sale by the Treasury Department to public shareholders of any “Program Instrument” (an instrument issued pursuant to a Program or a Covered Instrument). As a result, under the temporary regulations, a sale of stock by Treasury to the public creates a public group, and the rule of Section III(E) of Notice 2010-2 continues to apply as intended. This provision only affects the sale of a Program Instrument by the Treasury Department and does not affect the application of the segregation rule changes in TD 9638 to any other transactions involving stock of the corporations that participated in the Programs.

    A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-105067-14) cross-referencing the temporary regulations and incorporating the text of the temporary regulations was also published in the Federal Register (79 FR 44324) on July 31, 2014. No written comments were received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No requests for a public hearing were received, and accordingly no hearing was held.

    The Final Regulations

    This Treasury Decision adopts the text of the temporary and proposed regulations without substantive change. As a result, the effective date modification provided in the temporary regulations is now a part of the permanent section 382 regulations, and the temporary regulations are removed.

    Special Analyses

    It has been determined that this final regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that, if the regulations apply to any small entities, the effect will not be to increase their tax liability, but to prevent a potential increase in tax liability that might otherwise occur. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business, and no such comments were received.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these regulations is Stephen R. Cleary of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by revising the entry for § 1.382-3 to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Section 1.382-3 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 382(g)(4)(C) and 26 U.S.C. 382(m).

    Par. 2. Section 1.382-3 is amended by revising paragraph (j)(17) to read as follows:
    § 1.382-3 Definitions and rules relating to a 5-percent shareholder.

    (j) * * *

    (17) Effective/applicability date. This paragraph (j) generally applies to issuances or deemed issuances of stock in taxable years beginning on or after November 4, 1992. However, paragraphs (j)(11)(ii) and (j)(13) through (15) of this section and Examples 5 through 13 of paragraph (j)(16) of this section apply to testing dates occurring on or after October 22, 2013, other than with respect to the sale of a Program Instrument by the Treasury Department. For purposes of this paragraph (j)(17), a Program Instrument is an instrument issued pursuant to a Program, as defined in Internal Revenue Service Notice 2010-2 (2010-2 IRB 251 (December 16, 2009)) (see § 601.601(a)(2)(ii)(b) of this chapter), or a Covered Instrument, as defined in that Notice. Taxpayers may apply paragraphs (j)(11)(ii) and (j)(13) through (15) of this section and Examples 5 through 13 of paragraph (j)(16) of this section in their entirety (other than with respect to a sale of a Program Instrument by the Treasury Department) to all testing dates that are included in a testing period beginning before and ending on or after October 22, 2013. However, the provisions described in the preceding sentence may not be applied to any date on or before the date of any ownership change that occurred before October 22, 2013, under the regulations in effect before October 22, 2013, and they may not be applied as described in the preceding sentence if such application would result in an ownership change occurring on a date before October 22, 2013, that did not occur under the regulations in effect before October 22, 2013. See § 1.382-3(j)(14)(ii) and (iii), as contained in 26 CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 1994 for the application of paragraph (j)(10) of this section to stock issued on the exercise of certain options exercised on or after November 4, 1992, and for an election to apply paragraphs (j)(1) through (12) of this section retroactively to certain issuances and deemed issuances of stock occurring in taxable years prior to November 4, 1992.

    § 1.382-3T (Removed)
    Par. 3. Section 1.382-3T is removed.
    John M. Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: May 13, 2015. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
    [FR Doc. 2015-13711 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Part 0 [Directive No. 1-15] Redelegation of Authority to Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, Branch Directors, Heads of Offices, and United States Attorneys in Civil Division Cases AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule amends Civil Directive 1-10, which sets forth the redelegation of authority by the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division to deputy assistant attorneys general, branch directors, heads of offices, and United States Attorneys. On May 21, 2015, the Attorney General signed Order No. 3532-2015 increasing the monetary thresholds for the authority of Assistant Attorneys General to compromise or close civil claims, and increasing the redelegation authority to the United States Attorneys with respect to accepting offers of compromise for affirmative claims. Pursuant to the Attorney General's order, the new rule increases the redelegated authority to Branch Directors, heads of offices, and United States Attorneys to close or compromise affirmative claims. Additionally, the new rule redelegates to United States Attorneys, directors, and attorneys-in-charge the authority to issue compulsory process, and makes a few “housekeeping” revisions.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This rule is effective June 5, 2015, and is applicable beginning May 29, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joyce R. Branda, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; 202-307-0231.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This rule is a matter of internal Department management. It has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866. The Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division has reviewed this rule, and by approving it certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 0

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), Government employees, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Whistleblowing.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, title 28, chapter I, part 0, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:

    PART 0—ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-519.

    2. Appendix to Subpart Y is amended by removing Civil Directive No. 1-10 and adding in its place Civil Directive No. 1-15, to read as follows: Appendix to Subpart Y of Part 0—Redelegations of Authority to Compromise and Close Civil Claims [Directive No. 1-15]

    By virtue of the authority vested in me by part 0 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, particularly §§ 0.45, 0.160, 0.164, and 0.168, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1. Scope of Delegation Authority

    (a) Delegation to Deputy Assistant Attorneys General. The Deputy Assistant Attorneys General are hereby delegated all the power and authority of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division, including with respect to the institution of suits, the acceptance or rejection of compromise offers, the administrative settlement of claims, and the closing of claims or cases, unless any such authority or power is required by law to be exercised by the Assistant Attorney General personally or has been specifically delegated to another Department official.

    (b) Delegation to United States Attorneys; Branch, Office and Staff Directors; and Attorneys-in-Charge of Field Offices. Subject to the limitations imposed by 28 CFR 0.160(d) and 0.164, and sections 1(e) and 4(b) of this directive, and the authority of the Solicitor General set forth in 28 CFR 0.163, United States Attorneys; Branch, Office, and Staff Directors; and Attorneys-in-Charge of Field Offices, with respect to matters assigned or delegated to their respective components, are hereby delegated the authority to:

    (1) Accept offers in compromise of claims asserted by the United States in all cases in which the gross amount of the original claim does not exceed $10,000,000;

    (2) Accept offers in compromise of, or settle administratively, claims against the United States in all cases in which the principal amount of the proposed settlement does not exceed $1,000,000;

    (3) Reject any offers in compromise; and

    (4) Close any affirmative claim or case where the gross amount of the original claim does not exceed $10,000,000.

    (c) Subject to the limitations imposed by sections 1(e), 4(b), and 5 of this directive, United States Attorneys, Directors, and Attorneys-in-Charge are hereby delegated the authority to:

    (1) File suits, counterclaims, and cross-claims, or take any other action necessary to protect the interests of the United States in all routine nonmonetary cases, in all routine loan collection and foreclosure cases, and in other monetary claims or cases where the gross amount of the original claim does not exceed $10,000,000. Such actions in nonmonetary cases which are other than routine will be submitted for the approval of the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; and,

    (2) Issue subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and any other compulsory process.

    (d) United States Attorneys may redelegate in writing the above-conferred compromise and suit authority to Assistant United States Attorneys who supervise other Assistant United States Attorneys who handle civil litigation.

    (e) Limitations on delegations.

    (1) The authority to compromise cases, settle claims administratively, file suits, counterclaims, and cross-claims, to close claims or cases, or take any other action necessary to protect the interests of the United States, delegated by paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section, may not be exercised, and the matter shall be submitted for resolution to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, when:

    (i) For any reason, the proposed action, as a practical matter, will control or adversely influence the disposition of other claims totaling more than the respective amounts designated in the above paragraphs.

    (ii) Because a novel question of law or a question of policy is presented, or for any other reason, the proposed action should, in the opinion of the officer or employee concerned, receive the personal attention of the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division.

    (iii) The agency or agencies involved are opposed to the proposed action. The views of an agency must be solicited with respect to any significant proposed action if it is a party, if it has asked to be consulted with respect to any such proposed action, or if such proposed action in a case would adversely affect any of its policies.

    (iv) The United States Attorney involved is opposed to the proposed action and requests that the matter be submitted to the Assistant Attorney General for decision.

    (v) The case is on appeal, except as determined by the Director of the Appellate Staff.

    (2) In fraud or False Claims Act cases and matters, for reasons similar to those listed in sub-section l(e)(l)(i) through l(e)(l)(iii) above, the Director of the Fraud Section of the Commercial Litigation Branch, after consultation with the United States Attorney, may determine that a case or matter will not be delegated to the United States Attorney, but personally or jointly handled, or monitored, by the Civil Division.

    Section 2. Action Memoranda

    (a) Whenever, pursuant to the authority delegated by this Directive, an official of the Civil Division or a United States Attorney accepts a compromise, closes a claim or files a suit or claim, a memorandum fully explaining the basis for the action taken shall be executed and placed in the file. In the case of matters compromised, closed, or filed by United States Attorneys, a copy of the memorandum must, upon request therefrom, be sent to the appropriate Branch or Office of the Civil Division.

    (b) The compromising of cases or closing of claims or the filing of suits for claims, which a United States Attorney is not authorized to approve, shall be referred to the appropriate Branch or Office within the Civil Division, for decision by the Assistant Attorney General or the appropriate authorized person within the Civil Division. The referral memorandum should contain a detailed description of the matter, the United States Attorney's recommendation, the agency's recommendation where applicable, and a full statement of the reasons therefor.

    Section 3. Return of Civil Judgment Cases to Agencies

    Claims arising out of judgments in favor of the United States which cannot be permanently closed as uncollectible may be returned to the referring Federal agency for servicing and surveillance whenever all conditions set forth in USAM 4-3.230 have been met.

    Section 4. Authority for Direct Reference and Delegation of Civil Division Cases to United States Attorneys

    (a) Direct reference to United States Attorneys by agencies. The following civil actions under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, may be referred by the agency concerned directly to the appropriate United States Attorney for handling in trial courts, subject to the limitations imposed by paragraph (b) of this section. United States Attorneys are hereby delegated the authority to take all necessary steps to protect the interests of the United States, without prior approval of the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, or his representatives, subject to the limitations set forth in section 1(e) of this directive. Agencies may, however, if special handling is desired, refer these cases to the Civil Division. Also, when constitutional questions or other significant issues arise in the course of such litigation, or when an appeal is taken by any party, the Civil Division should be consulted.

    (1) Money claims by the United States where the gross amount of the original claim does not exceed $10,000,000.

    (2) Single family dwelling house foreclosures arising out of loans made or insured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Farm Service Agency.

    (3) Suits to enjoin violations of, or to collect penalties under, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C. 1376; the Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. 203, 207(g), 213, 215, 216, 222, and 228a; the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, 7 U.S.C. 499c(a) and 499h(d); the Egg Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.; the Potato Research and Promotion Act, 7 U.S.C. 2611 et seq.; the Cotton Research and Promotion Act of 1966, 7 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.; the Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; and the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    (4) Suits by social security beneficiaries under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 402 et seq.

    (5) Social Security disability suits under 42 U.S.C. 423 et seq.

    (6) Black lung beneficiary suits under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, 30 U.S.C. 921 et seq.

    (7) Suits by Medicare beneficiaries under 42 U.S.C. 1395ff.

    (8) Garnishment actions authorized by 42 U.S.C. 659 for child support or alimony payments and actions for general debt, 5 U.S.C. 5520a.

    (9) Judicial review of actions of the Secretary of Agriculture under the food stamp program, pursuant to the provisions of 7 U.S.C. 2022 involving retail food stores.

    (10) Cases referred by the Department of Labor for the collection of penalties or for injunctive action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

    (11) Cases referred by the Department of Labor solely for the collection of civil penalties under the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act of 1963, 7 U.S.C. 2048(b).

    (12) Cases referred by the Surface Transportation Board to enforce orders of the Surface Transportation Board or to enjoin or suspend such orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1336.

    (13) Cases referred by the United States Postal Service for injunctive relief under the nonmailable matter laws, 39 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.

    (b) Cases not covered. Regardless of the amount in controversy (unless otherwise specified), the following matters normally will not be delegated to United States Attorneys for handling but will be personally or jointly handled or monitored by the appropriate Branch or Office within the Civil Division:

    (1) Cases in the Court of Federal Claims.

    (2) Cases within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Litigation Branch involving patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc.

    (3) Cases before the United States Court of International Trade.

    (4) Any case involving bribery, conflict of interest, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of employment contract, or exploitation of public office.

    (5) Any case involving vessel-caused pollution in navigable waters.

    (6) Cases on appeal, except as determined by the Director of the Appellate Staff.

    (7) Any case involving litigation in a foreign court.

    (8) Criminal proceedings arising under statutes enforced by the Food and Drug Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (relating to odometer tampering), except as determined by the Director of the Consumer Protection Branch.

    (9) Nonmonetary civil cases, including injunction suits, declaratory judgment actions, and applications for inspection warrants, and cases seeking civil penalties where the gross amount of the original claim exceeds $10,000,000.

    (10) Cases arising under the statutes listed in 28 CFR 0.45(j), except as determined by the Director of the Consumer Protection Branch.

    (11) Administrative claims arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

    Section 5. Civil Investigative Demands

    Authority relating to Civil Investigative Demands issued under the False Claims Act is hereby delegated to United States Attorneys in cases that are delegated or assigned as monitored to their respective components. In accordance with guidelines provided by the Assistant Attorney General, each United States Attorney must provide notice and a report of Civil Investigative Demands issued by the United States Attorney. Authority relating to Civil Investigative Demands issued under the False Claims Act in cases that are jointly or personally handled by the Civil Division is hereby delegated to the Director of the Fraud Section of the Commercial Litigation Branch. When a case is jointly handled by the Civil Division and a United States Attorney's Office, the Director of the Fraud Section will issue a Civil Investigative Demand only after requesting the United States Attorney's recommendation.

    Section 6. Adverse Decisions

    All final judicial decisions adverse to the Government, other than bankruptcy court decisions except as provided herein, involving any direct reference or delegated case must be reported promptly to the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, attention Director, Appellate Staff. Consult title 2 of the United States Attorney's Manual for procedures and time limitations. An appeal of such a decision, as well as an appeal of an adverse decision by a district court or bankruptcy appellate panel reviewing a bankruptcy court decision or a direct appeal of an adverse bankruptcy court decision to a court of appeals, cannot be taken without approval of the Solicitor General. Until the Solicitor General has made a decision whether an appeal will be taken, the Government attorney handling the case must take all necessary procedural actions to preserve the Government's right to take an appeal, including filing a protective notice of appeal when the time to file a notice of appeal is about to expire and the Solicitor General has not yet made a decision. Nothing in the foregoing directive affects this obligation.

    Section 7. Definitions

    (a) For purposes of this directive, in the case of claims involving only civil penalties, other than claims defined in 28 CFR 0.169(b), the phrase “gross amount of the original claim” shall mean the maximum amount of penalties sought.

    (b) For purposes of this directive, in the case of claims asserted in bankruptcy proceedings, the phrase “gross amount of the original claim” shall mean liquidation value. Liquidation value is the forced sale value of the collateral, if any, securing the claim(s) plus the dividend likely to be paid for the unsecured portion of the claim(s) in an actual or hypothetical liquidation of the bankruptcy estate.

    Section 8. Supersession

    This directive supersedes Civil Division Directive No. 1-10 regarding redelegation of the Assistant Attorney General's authority in Civil Division cases to Branch Directors, heads of offices, and United States Attorneys.

    Section 9. Applicability

    This directive applies to all cases pending as of the date of this directive and is effective immediately.

    Section 10. No Private Right of Action

    This directive consists of rules of agency organization, procedure, and practice and does not create a private right of action for any private party to challenge the rules or actions taken pursuant to them.

    Dated: June 1, 2015. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13782 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Prisons 28 CFR Part 552 [BOP-1162-F] RIN 1120-AB62 Searches of Housing Units, Inmates, and Inmate Work Areas: Use of X-Ray Devices—Clarification of Terminology AGENCY:

    Bureau of Prisons, Justice.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) clarifies that body imaging search devices are “electronic search devices” for routine or random use in searching inmates, and are distinguished from medical x-ray devices, which require the inmate's consent, or Regional Director approval, for use as search devices.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 6, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In this document, the Bureau finalizes its regulation on searches of inmates using x-ray devices and technology (28 CFR part 552, subpart B). We change this regulation to clarify that body imaging search devices are “electronic search devices” for routine or random use in searching inmates, and are distinguished from medical x-ray devices, the use of which require the inmate's consent, or Regional Director approval, for use as search devices. We published a proposed rule on this subject on February 14, 2014 (79 FR 8910). We received a total of twenty comments on the proposed rule. Three comments were generally in favor of the proposed changes. Eleven comments were copies of the same form letter. We respond below to the issues raised by that form letter and the remaining six comments.

    The Electronic Devices That the Bureau Uses Are Unsafe or Will Cause Harm to Inmates

    Fifteen comments (including the eleven form letters) were concerned that the electronic devices used by the Bureau, particularly those which use x-ray technology, will be harmful to inmates. Another commenter stated that the use of x-ray technology as intended by the Bureau is so unsafe that it “is a clear violation of human rights.”

    The x-ray technology used for searches by the Bureau employs a very low level of radiation. Radiation is measured in units called “sieverts.” A person scanned by a Bureau body scanner would receive only 0.25 sieverts and can be scanned up to 1,000 times a year. For context, a scan from this machine is equal to eating two and a half bananas (the potassium in bananas emit radiation). Sleeping next to someone exposes you to .05 sieverts, because we all have minerals in our bones that emit radiation. Also, people living in areas of high elevations are exposed to almost 5 times (1.2 sieverts) as much radiation as one scan from a Bureau body scanner, because there is more cosmic radiation at high elevations. An airplane flight from New York to Los Angeles exposes a human body to 40 sieverts of radiation. Again, the Bureau's x-ray technology scanners employ only .25 sieverts, so low a level of radiation as to be safe.

    Further, the Bureau requested an independent study (“Radiation Protection Report”) of its pilot program use of the “Radpro SecurPass” technology. The review, conducted in 2012, was generated and peer reviewed by radiological physicists holding Certified Health Physicist credentials and board certification of the American Board of Radiology in Diagnostic Radiology. The Report concluded that the average effective reference dose was 0.233 sieverts, which is representative of the maximum possible radiation dose for the machine to one person for one scan. The Report concluded that the system may be operated at that dose level up to 1,000 times per year while maintaining the recommended safe radiation dose.

    The use of electronic search devices described in the proposed rule is also within established inmate search procedures. There is no impact it will have on the federal inmate population which is not already present. The proposed rule clarified that body x-ray imaging search devices are “electronic search devices” for routine or random use in searching inmates. This change does not affect physical contact with inmates or require disrobement. Other than increased effectiveness at identifying contraband through the use of new minimally invasive hand-held technology, there exists no actual or perceivable difference between already-in-use electronic search devices and the proposed x-ray search device. In fact, the use of the technology will cut down the frequency and need for more invasive searches of the type that inmates seek to avoid.

    Further, prisoners, visitors, and staff have diminished Fourth Amendment protections in a correctional setting under the constellation of rules created by Bell, Hudson, and Turner. In Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) and Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), inmates brought challenges to searches of their person and cells, respectively. The Bell court noted prisons are uniquely dangerous environments, and held that the interest in keeping out contraband outweighed inmate privacy concerns. Similarly, the Hudson court found prison cell searches are categorically reasonable since a prisoner's expectation of privacy must always yield to the paramount interest in institutional security. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) created a new standard: When a prison regulation impinges on the constitutional rights of an inmate, staff member, or visitor, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.

    The Turner standard, with the fact-specific principles of Bell have been consistently used guidelines to reference for inmate body searches. The Supreme Court specifically invoked both cases as primary guidance in Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington. The Court held it was reasonable in a physical search to command “detainees to lift their genitals or cough in a squatting position.” These procedures, similar to the ones upheld in Bell, are designed to uncover contraband that can go undetected by a patdown, metal detector, and other less invasive searches. 132 S. Ct. 1510, 1520, 182 L. Ed. 2d 566 (2012). Physical manipulation of an unclothed area, however, would not be permissible. Id. The non-contact electronic device search is precisely within the “less-invasive,” non-controversial ambit described in Florence.

    It is also important to note that the regulations will retain current language stating that use of any electronic device “does not require the inmate to remove clothing.” 28 CFR 552.11.

    Bureau Staff Do Not Have Adequate Training To Use New X-Ray Body Scan Technology

    One commenter was concerned that Bureau staff are not qualified to use new technology. This is not true. Policy accompanying the change to this regulation and the implementation of any new search device under these regulations will require training on the use of the devices. Operators Manuals for the technological devices will be required for all employees who operate the scanners. This training will be re-implemented annually.

    Implementation of the Devices Will Be Costly to the Public

    One commenter felt that “the cost of instituting [body scanners would be] incredible.” The scanning technology used by the Bureau is also routinely used in other public safety sectors (e.g. airport security, military, state jail security, etc.) and is not prohibitively expensive. The Bureau evaluated and tested several different types of whole body imaging devices, some acquired through surplus acquisition at no cost from other federal agencies. During the evaluation period, a significant amount of dangerous contraband (i.e., weapons, drugs and contraband cell phones), were detected with these devices and confiscated. Because the technology provides enhanced institution security, promotes staff and inmate safety, and ultimately increases the safety of the public, the return on investment for the cost of these devices is significant. In the Bureau's correctional judgment, the loss of life or serious injury, whether staff, inmate or a member of the public, is immeasurable and as such, the use of scanning technology to prevent such occurrences is reasonable and warranted.

    For the aforementioned reasons, we now finalize the proposed rule published on February 14, 2014 (79 FR 8910), without change.

    Executive Order 12866

    This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    Executive Order 13132

    This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule pertains to the correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This rule is not a major rule as defined by § 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

    List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 552

    Prisoners.

    Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Director, Bureau of Prisons.

    Accordingly, under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96, we amend 28 CFR part 552 as set forth below.

    SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT PART 552—CUSTODY 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 552 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984, as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510.

    2. Revise § 552.11(a) to read as follows:
    § 552.11 Searches of inmates.

    (a) Electronic devices. Inspection of an inmate's person using electronic devices (for example, metal detector, ion spectrometry device, or body imaging search device) does not require the inmate to remove clothing. The inspection may also include a search of the inmate's clothing and personal effects. Staff may conduct an electronic device search of an inmate on a routine or random basis to control contraband.

    3. Revise § 552.13 to read as follows:
    § 552.13 Medical x-ray device, major instrument, or surgical intrusion.

    (a) The institution physician may authorize use of a major instrument (including anoscope or vaginal speculum) or surgical intrusion for medical reasons only, with the inmate's consent.

    (b) The institution physician may authorize use of a medical x-ray device for medical reasons and only with the consent of the inmate. When there exists no reasonable alternative, and an examination using a medical x-ray device is determined necessary for the security, good order, or discipline of the institution, the Warden, upon approval of the Regional Director, may authorize the institution physician to order a non-repetitive examination using a medical x-ray device for the purpose of determining if contraband is concealed in or on the inmate (for example: In a cast or body cavity). The examination using a medical x-ray device may not be performed if it is determined by the institution physician that it is likely to result in serious or lasting medical injury or harm to the inmate. Staff shall place documentation of the examination and the reasons for the examination in the inmate's central file and medical file.

    (1) The Warden and Regional Director or persons officially acting in that capacity may not redelegate the authority to approve an examination using medical x-ray device for the purpose of determining if contraband is present. An Acting Warden or Acting Regional Director may, however, perform this function.

    (2) Staff shall solicit the inmate's consent prior to an examination using a medical x-ray device. However, the inmate's consent is not required.

    (c) The Warden may direct searches of inanimate objects using a medical x-ray device where the inmate is not exposed.

    [FR Doc. 2015-13710 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS DETROIT (LCS 7) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 5, 2015 and is applicable beginning May 13, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Commander Theron R. Korsak, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone number: 202-685-5040.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.

    This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), of the DoN, under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS DETROIT (LCS 7) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I paragraph 2(a)(i), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light at a height not less than 12 meters above the hull; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

    Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Vessels.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 1972 1. The authority citation for part 706 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1605.

    2. Section 706.2 is amended by: a. In Table One, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS DETROIT (LCS 7); and b. In Table Five, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS DETROIT (LCS 7).

    The additions read as follows:

    § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table One Vessel No. Distance in
  • meters of forward
  • masthead light
  • below minimum
  • required height.
  • § 2(a)(i) annex I
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS DETROIT LCS 7 6.80 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Table Five Vessel No. Masthead lights
  • not over all
  • other lights
  • and obstructions.
  • annex I, sec. 2(f)
  • Forward masthead
  • light not in
  • forward quarter
  • of ship. annex I,
  • sec. 3(a)
  • After masthead
  • light less than
  • 1/2 ship's length aft of forward
  • masthead light.
  • annex I, sec. 3(a)
  • Percentage
  • horizontal
  • separation
  • attained
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS DETROIT LCS 7 X X 23.0
    Approved: May 13, 2015. A.B. Fischer, Captain, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate, General (Admiralty and Maritime Law). Dated: May 27, 2015. P.A. Richelmi, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13754 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 9 and 721 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0220; FRL-9927-67] RIN 2070-AB27 Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is promulgating significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 22 chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). Two of these chemical substances are subject to TSCA section 5(e) consent orders issued by EPA. This action requires persons who intend to manufacture (including import) or process any of these 22 chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification will provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on August 4, 2015. For purposes of judicial review, this rule shall be promulgated at 1 p.m. (e.s.t.) on June 19, 2015.

    Written adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, on one or more of these SNURs must be received on or before July 6, 2015 (see Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). If EPA receives written adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, on one or more of these SNURs before July 6, 2015, EPA will withdraw the relevant sections of this direct final rule before its effective date.

    For additional information on related reporting requirement dates, see Units I.A., VI., and VII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0220, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-9232; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this rule. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Manufacturers or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.

    This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to these SNURs must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the subject of a proposed or final rule are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. Background A. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is promulgating these SNURs using direct final procedures. These SNURs will require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture or processing of a chemical substance for any activity designated by these SNURs as a significant new use. Receipt of such notices allows EPA to assess risks that may be presented by the intended uses and, if appropriate, to regulate the proposed use before it occurs. Additional rationale and background to these rules are more fully set out in the preamble to EPA's first direct final SNUR published in the Federal Register issue of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376) (FRL-3658-5). Consult that preamble for further information on the objectives, rationale, and procedures for SNURs and on the basis for significant new use designations, including provisions for developing test data.

    B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in Unit III. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process the chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described in § 721.5.

    C. Applicability of General Provisions

    General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to § 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same SNUN requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control the activities for which it has received the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the Federal Register its reasons for not taking action.

    III. Significant New Use Determination

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:

    • The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.

    • The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

    • The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

    • The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

    In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorized EPA to consider any other relevant factors.

    To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the 22 chemical substances that are the subject of these SNURs, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.

    IV. Substances Subject to This Rule

    EPA is establishing significant new use and recordkeeping requirements for 22 chemical substances in 40 CFR part 721, subpart E. In this unit, EPA provides the following information for each chemical substance:

    • PMN number.

    • Chemical name (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).

    • Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry number (assigned for non-confidential chemical identities).

    • Basis for the TSCA section 5(e) consent order or, the basis for the TSCA non-section 5(e) SNURs (i.e., SNURs without TSCA section 5(e) consent orders).

    • Tests recommended by EPA to provide sufficient information to evaluate the chemical substance (see Unit VIII. for more information).

    • CFR citation assigned in the regulatory text section of this rule.

    The regulatory text section of this rule specifies the activities designated as significant new uses. Certain new uses, including production volume limits (i.e., limits on manufacture volume) and other uses designated in this rule, may be claimed as CBI. Unit IX. discusses a procedure companies may use to ascertain whether a proposed use constitutes a significant new use.

    This rule includes 2 PMN substances (P-13-930 and P-14-763) that are subject to “risk-based” consent orders under TSCA section 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I) where EPA determined that activities associated with the PMN substances may present unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. Those consent orders require protective measures to limit exposures or otherwise mitigate the potential unreasonable risk. The so-called “TSCA section 5(e) SNURs” on these PMN substances are promulgated pursuant to § 721.160, and are based on and consistent with the provisions in the underlying consent orders. The TSCA section 5(e) SNURs designate as a “significant new use” the absence of the protective measures required in the corresponding consent orders.

    This rule also includes SNURs on 20 PMN substances that are not subject to consent orders under TSCA section 5(e). In these cases, for a variety of reasons, EPA did not find that the use scenario described in the PMN triggered the determinations set forth under TSCA section 5(e). However, EPA does believe that certain changes from the use scenario described in the PMN could result in increased exposures, thereby constituting a “significant new use.” These so-called “TSCA non-section 5(e) SNURs” are promulgated pursuant to § 721.170. EPA has determined that every activity designated as a “significant new use” in all TSCA non-section 5(e) SNURs issued under § 721.170 satisfies the two requirements stipulated in § 721.170(c)(2), i.e., these significant new use activities are different from those described in the premanufacture notice for the substance, including any amendments, deletions, and additions of activities to the premanufacture notice, and may be accompanied by changes in exposure or release levels that are significant in relation to the health or environmental concerns identified” for the PMN substance.

    PMN Number P-11-549

    Chemical name: 2-Butene, 1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-, (2Z)-.

    CAS number: 692-49-9.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a heat transfer fluid. Based on test data on the PMN substance as well as structure activity relationship (SAR) analysis of analogous small fluorinated compounds, EPA identified concerns for cardiac sensitization, developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive toxicity and oncogenicity from inhalation exposures to the PMN substance. As described in the PMN, occupational exposures are expected to be minimal due to no domestic manufacture and consumer exposure is not expected due to no use of the substance in a consumer product. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed processing or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any domestic manufacture, any use other than as described in the PMN, or any use of the substance in a consumer product may cause serious health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that inhalation monitoring data, collected according to the EPA draft Inhalation Monitoring Data Collection Guidelines (located in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0220) would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10830.

    PMN Number P-13-690

    Chemical name: Aluminum phosphate (generic).

    CAS number: Claimed confidential.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the substance will be used as a flame retardant for industrial plastics. Based on SAR analysis of test data on analogous respirable, poorly soluble particulates, EPA identified concerns for lung effects, blood toxicity, hypersensitivity, developmental neurotoxicity, and immunotoxicity from inhalation exposures to the PMN substance. Further, based on ecological SAR analysis of test data on analogous aluminum salts, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 87 parts per billion (ppb) of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, occupational exposures are expected to be minimal due to use of respiratory protection, and releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 87 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the PMN substance without the use of National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified respirator with an assigned protection factor (APF) of at least 10, where inhalation exposures are expected, or any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 87 ppb may cause serious human health effects and significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at 40 CFR 721.170(b)(3)(ii) and (b)(4)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a 90-day inhalation toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3465 or Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Test Guideline 413); a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1400); a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1300); and an algal toxicity test (Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the human health and environmental effects of the PMN substance. EPA also recommends that the guidance document on aquatic toxicity testing of difficult substance and mixtures (OECD Test Guideline 23) be consulted to facilitate solubility of the PMN substance in the test media.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10831.

    PMN Number P-13-872

    Chemical name: Alkyl triazine (generic).

    CAS number: Claimed confidential.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the substance will be used in the removal of hydrogen sulfide. Based on test data on the PMN substance, as well as ecological SAR analysis of test data on analogous aliphatic amines, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 130 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 130 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 130 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1400) and a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1300) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10832.

    PMN Number P-13-930

    Chemical name: Substituted bis 2,6-xylenol (generic).

    CAS number: Claimed confidential.

    Effective date of TSCA section 5(e) consent order: December 10, 2014.

    Basis for TSCA section 5(e) consent order: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a reactant in polymerization reactions. Based on SAR analysis of test data on structurally similar substances, EPA identified concerns for liver, kidney and developmental toxicity; blood effects, sensitization, and endocrine disruption. Further, based on test data on the PMN substance, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms at concentrations that exceed 6 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. The order was issued under TSCA sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that the substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to the environment and human health, and there may be significant (or substantial) human exposure to the substance. To protect against these exposures and risks, the consent order requires:

    1. Use of personal protective equipment involving impervious gloves and protective clothing (where there is a potential for dermal exposure) and a NIOSH-certified respirator with an APF of at least 50 (where there is a potential for inhalation exposure).

    2. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health, environmental hazard precautionary statements on each label and the MSDS.

    3. Manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance only as an intermediate.

    4. Submission of certain toxicity testing prior to exceeding the confidential production volume limits of the PMN substance specified in the consent order.

    5. No predictable or purposeful release of the PMN substance from manufacturing, processing or use into the waters of the United States that result in surface water concentrations exceeding 6 ppb.

    The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of certain toxicity testing, identified in the TSCA 5(e) consent order would help characterize possible effects of the substance. The submitter has agreed not to exceed the first confidential volume limit without performing an aromatase (human recombinant) test (OCSPP Test Guideline 890.1200) and a steroidogenesis (human cell line-H295R) test (OCSPP Test Guideline 890.1550 or OECD Test Guideline 456). Further, the Order prohibits the Company from exceeding the second confidential production volume limit unless the Company submits the Tier 2 testing described in the Testing section of this Order in accordance with the conditions specified in the Testing section.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10833.

    PMN Number P-14-20

    Chemical name: Heteropolycyclic diacrylate (generic).

    CAS number: Claimed confidential.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a coating resin. Based on test data on the PMN, EPA identified concerns for dermal and ocular irritation, and systemic toxicity from the dermal, ocular, and oral routes. Further, based on ecological SAR analysis of test data on analogous acrylates, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 120 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, occupational exposures are expected to be minimal due to the use of impervious gloves, goggles, and a NIOSH-certified particulate respirator with an APF of at least 10. Further, releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 120 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance without the use of impervious gloves and goggles, when there is a potential dermal exposure; any use of the substance without a NIOSH-certified particulate respirator with an APF of at least 10, where there is a potential for inhalation exposures; or any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 120 ppb may cause serious health effects and significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(i) and (b)(4)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a combined repeated dose toxicity with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3650); a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1400); a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1300); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the human health and environmental effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10834.

    PMN Number P-14-66

    Chemical name: 1,6-Hexanediamine, N1-(6-aminohexyl)-, polymer with 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane, N-(dithiocarboxy) derivs., sodium salts.

    CAS number: 1459738-70-5.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the substance will be used as a water clarifier intermediate. Based on ecological SAR analysis of test data on analogous dithiocarbamates, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 1 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 1 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance that results in surface water concentrations exceeding 1 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a mysid acute toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.1035); a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1075); an acute invertebrate toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1010); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10835.

    PMN Number P-14-209

    Chemical name: Dimethylaminoalkyl alkene amide (generic).

    CAS number: Claimed confidential.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as an adjuvant for non-Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)-regulated agricultural use products, an additive for pesticide formulations, and an additive for fertilizer formulations. Based on test data on the PMN substance, as well as ecological SAR analysis of test data on analogous amides and aliphatic amines, EPA predicts chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 4 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters for greater than 20 days per year. This 20-day criterion is derived from partial life cycle tests (daphnid chronic and fish early-life stage tests) that typically range from 21 to 28 days in duration. EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur if releases of the PMN substance to surface water exceed releases from the use described in the PMN. For the uses described in the PMN, environmental releases did not exceed the concentration of concern for more than 20 days per year. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that use of the substance other than as described in the PMN may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substances meet the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1400) and a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1300) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10836.

    PMN Number P-14-452

    Chemical name: Substituted naphthalene polymer glycidyl ether (generic).

    CAS number: Claimed confidential.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) uses of the substance will be as a matrix resin for composite materials and a binder resin for electronic materials. Based on ecological SAR analysis of test data on analogous polyepoxides, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 1 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 1 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 1 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1400); a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1300); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10837.

    PMN Number P-14-473

    Chemical name: Alkylpolycarboxylic acid, derivative, tris(fluorinatedalkoxy)alkyl ester salt (generic).

    CAS number: Claimed confidential.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be for coatings and printing applications. Based on ecological SAR analysis of test data on analogous anionic surfactants, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 6 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 6 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 6 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a water solubility study (OECD Test Guideline 105); a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1075); a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1400); and a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1300) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10838.

    PMN Number P-14-476

    Chemical name: Tricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decan-1-amine, N,N-dimethyl-.

    CAS number: 3717-40-6.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as an isolated intermediate. Based on ecological SAR analysis of test data on analogous aliphatic amines, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 8 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 8 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined that any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 8 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1400); a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1300); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10839.

    PMN Number P-14-510

    Chemical name: Sulfosuccinic acid ester, alkylamine derivs., sodium salt (generic).

    CAS number: Claimed confidential.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as an industrial leather softener. Based on test data on the PMN substance as well as SAR analysis of test data on analogous anionic surfactants, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 94 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 94 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 94 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1400) and a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1300) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10840.

    PMN Number P-14-603

    Chemical name: Bismuth nitrate oxide (Bi3(NO3)O4).

    CAS number: 1417164-49-8.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a proprietary degradation inhibitor additive in polymer-based insulation sheets. Based on test data on analogous respirable, poorly soluble particulates, EPA identified concerns for lung effects from inhalation exposures to the PMN substance. For the use described in the PMN, significant inhalation exposures are not expected. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance other than as listed in the PMN, or without respiratory protection, may cause serious health effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a 90-day inhalation toxicity study with a 60-day holding period (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3465) would help characterize the human health effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10841.

    PMN Number P-14-605

    Chemical name: Substituted cyclosiloxane (generic).

    CAS number: Claimed confidential.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the use of the substance will be as a refractive index modifier component for light-emitting diode (LED) chips. Based on the physical/chemical properties of the PMN substance (as described in the New Chemical Program's PBT category at 64 FR 60194; November 4, 1999) and test data on structurally similar substances, the PMN substance is a potentially persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemical. EPA estimates that the PMN substance will persist in the environment more than 2 months and estimates a bioaccumulation factor of greater than or equal to 1,000. As described in the PMN notice, the PMN substance will not be released to water. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance other than as described in the PMN or resulting in releases to water may cause serious health effects and significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(ii), (b)(4)(ii), and (b)(4)(iii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a partition coefficient (n-octanol/water) test, estimation by liquid chromatography (OPPTS Test Guideline 830.7570 or OECD Test Guideline 117); a ready biodegradability test (OPPTS Test Guideline 835.3110 or OECD Test Guideline 301); a fish bioconcentration factor (BCF) test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1730 or (OECD Test Guideline 305); and a water solubility test (OECD Test Guideline 111) would help characterize the health and environmental effects of the PMN substance. Depending on the results of these tests, additional testing as identified in the PBT category may be recommended.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10842.

    PMN Numbers P-14-666 and P-14-668

    Chemical names: Substituted amide aromatic carboxylic acid, metal salt (generic).

    CAS numbers: Claimed confidential.

    Basis for action: The PMNs state that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substances will be as morphology modifiers for plastics. Based on ecological SAR analysis of test data on analogous amides, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 67 ppb of the PMN substance (P-14-666) and 39 ppb of the PMN substance (P-14-668) in surface waters for greater than 20 days per year. This 20-day criterion is derived from partial life cycle tests (daphnid chronic and fish early-life stage tests) that typically range from 21 to 28 days in duration. EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur if releases of the substances to surface water, from uses other than as described in the PMNs, exceed releases from the uses described in the PMNs. For the use described in the PMNs, environmental releases did not exceed 67 ppb (P-14-666) and 39 ppb (P-14-668) for more than 20 days per year. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substances may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substances other than as listed in the PMNs may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substances meet the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a ready biodegradability test (OPPTS Test Guideline 835.3110); a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1400); a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1300); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) on each PMN substance would help characterize their environmental effects.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10843.

    PMN Number P-14-763

    Chemical name: Graphene nanoplatelets having a predominant thickness of 1-10 layers with lateral dimension predominantly less than 2 microns.

    CAS number: Not Available

    Effective date of TSCA section 5(e) consent order: December 30, 2014.

    Basis for TSCA section 5(e) consent order: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be in printed electronics, solar energy, separations, and functional composites. Based on SAR analysis of test data on respirable, poorly soluble particulates and analogous carbon nanomaterials, EPA identified concerns for pulmonary toxicity, oncogenicity, immunotoxicity, fibrosis, and lung toxicity from lung overload. The order was issued under TSCA sections 5(e)(1)(A)(i) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that these substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury to the environment and human health, and there may be significant (or substantial) human exposure to the substance. To protect against these exposures and risks, the consent order requires:

    1. Use of personal protective equipment involving impervious gloves and protective clothing (where there is a potential for dermal exposure) and a NIOSH-certified respirator (where there is a potential for inhalation exposure).

    2. Establishment and use of a hazard communication program, including human health, environmental hazard precautionary statements on each label and the MSDS.

    3. Manufacturing, processing, or use of the PMN substance only as described in the consent order.

    4. No use of the PMN substance using an application method that generates a vapor, mist, or aerosol.

    5. Submission of certain toxicity testing prior to exceeding the confidential production volume limits of the PMN substances specified in the consent order.

    6. No predictable or purposeful release of the PMN substances from manufacturing, processing or use into the waters of the United States.

    The SNUR designates as a “significant new use” the absence of these protective measures.

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of certain particle size distribution and material characterization testing would be needed for the PMN substance. The company has agreed to submit the full chemical characterization testing described in the testing section of the consent order within the timeframes identified in the order. Further, depending on the results of the characterization testing, additional toxicity testing may be required at a confidential aggregate manufacture volume, as detailed in the consent order.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10844.

    PMN Number P-14-781

    Chemical name: Methanaminium, N-[4-[[4-(dimethylamino)phenyl]phenylmethylene]-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]-N-methyl-, ethanedioate, ethanedioate (2:2:1).

    CAS number: 2437-29-8.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substance will be as a component of industrial inks and dyes. Based on test data on analogous malachite green chloride, pararosaniline, gentian violet, crystal violet, oxalic acid, and other analogous substances, EPA identified concerns for mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, eye irritation, as well as kidney, acute, and developmental toxicities for occupational inhalation exposures and general population exposures from drinking water exposures. In addition, based on ecological SAR analysis of test data on analogous cationic dyes, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 1 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, occupational exposures during processing and use activities are expected to be minimal. Further, releases of the PMN substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 1 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed processing or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any domestic manufacture of the substance, or any release of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 1 ppb may cause serious health effects and significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(ii) and (b)(4)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a combined repeated dose toxicity with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test (OECD Test Guideline 422); a bacterial reverse mutation test (OECD Test Guideline 471); an in vitro mammalian chromosome aberration test (OECD Test Guideline 473); a fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1075); an aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1010); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the human health an environmental effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10845.

    PMN Number P-14-811

    Chemical name: Sulfurized hydrocarbon (generic).

    CAS number: Claimed confidential.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the use of the substance will be as a lubricant additive. Based on ecological SAR analysis of test data on analogous neutral organics, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 1 ppb of the low molecular weight components of PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, where 80 percent of the molecular weight species is greater than 1,000 daltons, releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 1 ppb of the low molecular weight components. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use of the substance where less than 80 percent of the molecular weight species is greater than 1,000 daltons, may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of an inherent biodegradability Zahn-Wellens test (OECD Test Guideline 302); an aerobic and anaerobic transformation in soil test (OECD Test Guideline 307); a fish BCF test: Aqueous and dietary exposure (OECD Test Guideline 305); a bioaccumulation in sediment-dwelling benthic oligochaetes test (OECD Test Guideline 315); a sediment-water chironomid toxicity test using spiked sediment (OECD Test Guideline 218); a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1400); a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1300); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10846.

    PMN Number P-14-821

    Chemical name: Oxiranemethanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-, bromide.

    CAS number: 13895-77-7.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the substance will be used as an intermediate for polymer production. Based on test data on analogous epoxides, EPA identified concerns for skin and lung sensitization, mutagenicity, oncogenicity, developmental toxicity, male reproductive, liver, and kidney toxicity from dermal and inhalation exposures. Further, based on ecological SAR analysis of test data on analogous quaternary ammonium compounds, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 28 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, particulate exposures are not expected and releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 28 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any manufacture, processing, or use of the substance in the form of a powder or any use of the substance resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 28 ppb may cause serious health effects and significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(3)(ii) and (b)(4)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a 90-day inhalation toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.3465); a bacterial reverse mutation test (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.5100); a ready biodegradability test (OECD Test Guideline 301D) closed bottle method; a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1400); a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1300); and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the human health and environmental effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10847.

    PMN Number P-14-875

    Chemical name: Aryloxyalkyl amine (generic).

    CAS number: Claimed confidential.

    Basis for action: The PMN states that the substance will be used as an intermediate. Based on test data on the PMN substance and SAR analysis of test data on analogous aliphatic amines, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 44 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters. As described in the PMN, releases of the substance are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 44 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substance may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 44 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substance meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a ready biodegradability test (OECD Test Guideline 301) and an algal toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4500) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substance.

    CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10848.

    PMN Numbers P-15-115 and P-15-116

    Chemical names: (P-15-115) Phenol-biphenyl-formaldehyde polycondensate (generic); (P-15-116) Polymer of phenol, biphenyl and resorcinol (generic).

    CAS numbers: Claimed confidential.

    Basis for action: The PMNs state that the generic (non-confidential) use of the substances will be in electric molding. Based on test data on the PMN substances as well as SAR analysis of test data on analogous phenols, EPA predicts toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at concentrations that exceed 5 ppb of the PMN substances in surface waters. As described in the PMNs, releases of the substances are not expected to result in surface water concentrations that exceed 5 ppb. Therefore, EPA has not determined that the proposed manufacturing, processing, or use of the substances may present an unreasonable risk. EPA has determined, however, that any use resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 5 ppb may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on this information, the PMN substances meet the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii).

    Recommended testing: EPA has determined that the results of a water solubility test (OECD Test Guideline 105); a fish early-life stage toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1400); and a daphnid chronic toxicity test (OPPTS Test Guideline 850.1300) would help characterize the environmental effects of the PMN substances. Testing may be conducted on either P-15-115 or P-15-116 and results should include a GPC analysis of molecular weight distribution.

    CFR citations: 40 CFR 721.10849 (P-15-115) and 40 CFR 721.10850 (P-15-116)

    V. Rationale and Objectives of the Rule A. Rationale

    During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances that are subject to these SNURs, EPA concluded that for 2 of the 22 chemical substances, regulation was warranted under TSCA section 5(e), pending the development of information sufficient to make reasoned evaluations of the health or environmental effects of the chemical substances. The basis for such findings is outlined in Unit IV. Based on these findings, TSCA section 5(e) consent orders requiring the use of appropriate exposure controls were negotiated with the PMN submitters. The SNUR provisions for these chemical substances are consistent with the provisions of the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders. These SNURs are promulgated pursuant to § 721.160 (see Unit VI.).

    In the other 20 cases, where the uses are not regulated under a TSCA section 5(e) consent order, EPA determined that one or more of the criteria of concern established at § 721.170 were met, as discussed in Unit IV.

    B. Objectives

    EPA is issuing these SNURs for specific chemical substances which have undergone premanufacture review because the Agency wants to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new uses designated in this rule:

    • EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.

    • EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.

    • EPA will be able to regulate prospective manufacturers or processors of a listed chemical substance before the described significant new use of that chemical substance occurs, provided that regulation is warranted pursuant to TSCA sections 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7.

    • EPA will ensure that all manufacturers and processors of the same chemical substance that is subject to a TSCA section 5(e) consent order are subject to similar requirements.

    Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/existingchemicals/pubs/tscainventory/index.html.

    VI. Direct Final Procedures

    EPA is issuing these SNURs as a direct final rule, as described in § 721.160(c)(3) and § 721.170(d)(4). In accordance with § 721.160(c)(3)(ii) and § 721.170(d)(4)(i)(B), the effective date of this rule is August 4, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives written adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments before July 6, 2015.

    If EPA receives written adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, on one or more of these SNURs before July 6, 2015, EPA will withdraw the relevant sections of this direct final rule before its effective date. EPA will then issue a proposed SNUR for the chemical substance(s) on which adverse or critical comments were received, providing a 30-day period for public comment.

    This rule establishes SNURs for a number of chemical substances. Any person who submits adverse or critical comments, or notice of intent to submit adverse or critical comments, must identify the chemical substance and the new use to which it applies. EPA will not withdraw a SNUR for a chemical substance not identified in the comment.

    VII. Applicability of the Significant New Use Designation

    To establish a significant new use, EPA must determine that the use is not ongoing. The chemical substances subject to this rule have undergone premanufacture review. In cases where EPA has not received a notice of commencement (NOC) and the chemical substance has not been added to the TSCA Inventory, no person may commence such activities without first submitting a PMN. Therefore, for chemical substances for which an NOC has not been submitted EPA concludes that the designated significant new uses are not ongoing.

    When chemical substances identified in this rule are added to the TSCA Inventory, EPA recognizes that, before the rule is effective, other persons might engage in a use that has been identified as a significant new use. However, TSCA section 5(e) consent orders have been issued for 2 of the 22 chemical substances, and the PMN submitters are prohibited by the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders from undertaking activities which would be designated as significant new uses. The identities of 16 of the 22 chemical substances subject to this rule have been claimed as confidential and EPA has received no post-PMN bona fide submissions (per §§ 720.25 and 721.11). Based on this, the Agency believes that it is highly unlikely that any of the significant new uses described in the regulatory text of this rule are ongoing.

    Therefore, EPA designates June 5, 2015 as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. Persons who begin commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substances for a significant new use identified as of that date would have to cease any such activity upon the effective date of the final rule. To resume their activities, these persons would have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until the notice review period, including any extensions, expires. If such a person met the conditions of advance compliance under § 721.45(h), the person would be considered exempt from the requirements of the SNUR. Consult the Federal Register document of April 24, 1990 for a more detailed discussion of the cutoff date for ongoing uses.

    VIII. Test Data and Other Information

    EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. The two exceptions are:

    1. Development of test data is required where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a test rule under TSCA section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).

    2. Development of test data may be necessary where the chemical substance has been listed under TSCA section 5(b)(4) (see TSCA section 5(b)(2)).

    In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule or a TSCA section 5(b)(4) listing covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see 40 CFR 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing. In cases where EPA issued a TSCA section 5(e) consent order that requires or recommends certain testing, Unit IV. lists those tests. Unit IV. also lists recommended testing for non-5(e) SNURs. Descriptions of tests are provided for informational purposes. EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select “Test Methods and Guidelines.” The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guidelines are available from the OECD Bookshop at http://www.oecdbookshop.org or SourceOECD at http://www.sourceoecd.org.

    In the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders for several of the chemical substances regulated under this rule, EPA has established production volume limits in view of the lack of data on the potential health and environmental risks that may be posed by the significant new uses or increased exposure to the chemical substances. These limits cannot be exceeded unless the PMN submitter first submits the results of toxicity tests that would permit a reasoned evaluation of the potential risks posed by these chemical substances. Under recent TSCA section 5(e) consent orders, each PMN submitter is required to submit each study before reaching the specified production limit. Listings of the tests specified in the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders are included in Unit IV. The SNURs contain the same production volume limits as the TSCA section 5(e) consent orders. Exceeding these production limits is defined as a significant new use. Persons who intend to exceed the production limit must notify the Agency by submitting a SNUN at least 90 days in advance of commencement of non-exempt commercial manufacture, or processing.

    The recommended tests specified in Unit IV. may not be the only means of addressing the potential risks of the chemical substance. However, submitting a SNUN without any test data may increase the likelihood that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e), particularly if satisfactory test results have not been obtained from a prior PMN or SNUN submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate tests.

    SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:

    • Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.

    • Potential benefits of the chemical substances.

    • Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.

    IX. Procedural Determinations

    By this rule, EPA is establishing certain significant new uses which have been claimed as CBI subject to Agency confidentiality regulations at 40 CFR part 2 and 40 CFR part 720, subpart E. Absent a final determination or other disposition of the confidentiality claim under 40 CFR part 2 procedures, EPA is required to keep this information confidential. EPA promulgated a procedure to deal with the situation where a specific significant new use is CBI, at 40 CFR 721.1725(b)(1).

    Under these procedures a manufacturer or processor may request EPA to determine whether a proposed use would be a significant new use under the rule. The manufacturer or processor must show that it has a bona fide intent to manufacture or process the chemical substance and must identify the specific use for which it intends to manufacture or process the chemical substance. If EPA concludes that the person has shown a bona fide intent to manufacture or process the chemical substance, EPA will tell the person whether the use identified in the bona fide submission would be a significant new use under the rule. Since most of the chemical identities of the chemical substances subject to these SNURs are also CBI, manufacturers and processors can combine the bona fide submission under the procedure in § 721.1725(b)(1) with that under § 721.11 into a single step.

    If EPA determines that the use identified in the bona fide submission would not be a significant new use, i.e., the use does not meet the criteria specified in the rule for a significant new use, that person can manufacture or process the chemical substance so long as the significant new use trigger is not met. In the case of a production volume trigger, this means that the aggregate annual production volume does not exceed that identified in the bona fide submission to EPA. Because of confidentiality concerns, EPA does not typically disclose the actual production volume that constitutes the use trigger. Thus, if the person later intends to exceed that volume, a new bona fide submission would be necessary to determine whether that higher volume would be a significant new use.

    X. SNUN Submissions

    According to § 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notification requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs must be submitted on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 720.40 and § 721.25. E-PMN software is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems.

    XI. Economic Analysis

    EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances subject to this rule. EPA's complete economic analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0220.

    XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866

    This action establishes SNURs for several new chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs, or TSCA section 5(e) consent orders. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    According to PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 to list the OMB approval number for the information collection requirements contained in this action. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. This Information Collection Request (ICR) was previously subject to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval, and given the technical nature of the table, EPA finds that further notice and comment to amend it is unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that there is “good cause” under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to amend this table without further notice and comment.

    The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.

    Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that promulgation of a SNUR does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities where the following are true:

    1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.

    2. The SNUR submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.

    A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this action.

    This action is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit XI. and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:

    • A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.

    • Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300.

    Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this action. As such, EPA has determined that this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    E. Executive Order 13132

    This action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

    F. Executive Order 13175

    This action does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This action does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action.

    G. Executive Order 13045

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.

    H. Executive Order 13211

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.

    J. Executive Order 12898

    This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    XIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 28, 2015. Maria J. Doa, Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

    Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows:

    PART 9—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

    2. In § 9.1, add the following sections in numerical order under the undesignated center heading “Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances” to read as follows:
    § 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 40 CFR citation OMB control No. *    *    *    *    * Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances *    *    *    *    * 721.10830 2070-0012 721.10831 2070-0012 721.10832 2070-0012 721.10833 2070-0012 721.10834 2070-0012 721.10835 2070-0012 721.10836 2070-0012 721.10837 2070-0012 721.10838 2070-0012 721.10839 2070-0012 721.10840 2070-0012 721.10841 2070-0012 721.10842 2070-0012 721.10843 2070-0012 721.10844 2070-0012 721.10845 2070-0012 721.10846 2070-0012 721.10847 2070-0012 721.10848 2070-0012 721.10849 2070-0012 721.10850 2070-0012 *    *    *    *    *
    PART 721—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

    4. Add § 721.10830 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.18030 2-Butene, 1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-, (2Z)-.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as 2-butene, 1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-, (2Z)- (PMN P-11-549; CAS No. 692-49-9) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(f), (j), and (o).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c), and (i) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    5. Add § 721.10831 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.18031 Aluminum phosphate (generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as aluminum phosphate (PMN P-13-690) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The requirements of this section do not apply to quantities of the PMN substance that has been completely reacted (cured) or entrained into a polymer matrix.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Protection in the workplace. Requirements as specified in § 721.63(a)(4) and (a)(6)(1). When determining which persons are reasonably likely to be exposed as required for § 721.63(a)(4), engineering control measures (e.g., enclosure or confinement of the operation, general and local ventilation) or administrative control measures (e.g., workplace policies and procedures) shall be considered and implemented to prevent exposure, where feasible. A National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified respirator with an Assigned Protection Factor (APF) of at least 10 meet the requirements of § 721.63(a)(4).

    (ii) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=87).

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (e), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    6. Add § 721.10832 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10832 Alkyl triazine (generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as alkyl triazine (PMN P-13-872) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=130).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    7. Add § 721.10833 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10833 Substituted bis 2,6-xylenol (generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as substituted bis 2,6-xylenol (PMN P-13-930) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The requirements of this section do not apply to quantities of the PMN substance that have been incorporated into an article or has been incorporated into a polymer matrix.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Protection in the workplace. Requirements as specified in § 721.63(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6)(i), (a)(6)(ii), (b)(concentration set at 1.0 percent), and (c). When determining which persons are reasonably likely to be exposed as required for § 721.63(a)(4), engineering control measures (e.g., enclosure or confinement of the operation, general and local ventilation) or administrative control measures (e.g., workplace policies and procedures) shall be considered and implemented to prevent exposure, where feasible. The following National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified respirators with an assigned protection factor (APF) of at least 50 meet the requirements of § 721.63(a)(4):

    (A) NIOSH-certified power air-purifying respirator with a hood or helmet and with appropriate gas/vapor (acid gas, organic vapor, or substance specific) cartridges in combination with HEPA filters.

    (B) NIOSH-certified continuous flow supplied-air respirator equipped with a loose fitting facepiece, hood, or helmet.

    (C) NIOSH-certified negative pressure (demand) supplied-air respirator with a full facepiece.

    (ii) Hazard communication. Requirements as specified in § 721.72(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f)(concentration set at 1.0 percent), (g)(1)(The PMN substance may cause sensitization, eye irritation, internal organ effects, and developmental effects), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4)(i), and (g)(5).

    (iii) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(g) and (q).

    (iv) Release to water. (A) Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) N=6. However the requirements of § 721.91(a)(4) do not apply. Instead, if control technologies are in place to treat the waste stream containing the PMN substance, the amount of the PMN substance reasonably likely to be removed from the waste stream by such treatment may be subtracted in calculating the number of kilograms releases. No more than 40 percent removal efficiency may be attributed to such treatment.

    (B) In lieu of calculating the quotient, monitoring or alternative calculations may be used to predict the surface water concentrations expected to result from the intended release of the substance, if the monitoring procedures or calculations have been approved for such purposes by EPA.

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (i), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    (3) Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section. The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section.

    8. Add § 721.10834 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10834 Heteropolycyclic diacrylate (generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as heteropolycyclic diacrylate (PMN P-14-20) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Protection in the workplace. Requirements as specified in § 721.63(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6)(i), (a)(6)(ii), (b) (concentration set at 1.0 percent), and (c). When determining which persons are reasonably likely to be exposed as required for § 721.63(a)(4), engineering control measures (e.g., enclosure or confinement of the operation, general and local ventilation) or administrative control measures (e.g., workplace policies and procedures) shall be considered and implemented to prevent exposure, where feasible. The following National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified respirators with an assigned protection factor (APF) of at least 10 meet the requirements of § 721.63(a)(4):

    (A) NIOSH-certified power air-purifying respirator with a hood or helmet and with appropriate gas/vapor (acid gas, organic vapor, or substance specific) cartridges in combination with HEPA filters.

    (B) NIOSH-certified continuous flow supplied-air respirator equipped with a loose fitting facepiece, hood, or helmet.

    (ii) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=120).

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (e), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    9. Add § 721.10835 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10835 1,6-Hexanediamine, N1-(6-aminohexyl)-, polymer with 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane, N-(dithiocarboxy) derivs., sodium salts.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as 1,6-Hexanediamine, N1-(6-aminohexyl)-, polymer with 2-(chloromethyl)oxirane, N-(dithiocarboxy) derivs., sodium salts (PMN P-14-66; CAS No. 1459738-70-5) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=1).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    10. Add § 721.10836 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10836 Dimethylaminoalkyl alkene amide (generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as dimethylaminoalkyl alkene amide (PMN P-14-209) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(j).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c), and (i) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    (3) Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section. The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.

    11. Add § 721.10837 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10837 Substituted naphthalene polymer glycidyl ether (generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as substituted naphthalene polymer glycidyl ether (PMN P-14-452) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=1).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    12. Add § 721.10838 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10838 Alkylpolycarboxylic acid, derivative, tris(fluorinatedalkoxy)alkyl ester salt (generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as alkylpolycarboxylic acid, derivative, tris(fluorinatedalkoxy)alkyl ester salt (PMN P-14-473) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=6).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    13. Add § 721.10839 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10839 Tricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decan-1-amine, N,N-dimethyl-.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as tricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decan-1-amine, N,N-dimethyl- (PMN P-14-476; CAS No. 3717-40-6) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=8).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c) and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    14. Add § 721.10840 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10840 Sulfosuccinic acid ester, alkylamine derivs., sodium salt (generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as sulfosuccinic acid ester, alkylamine derivs., sodium salt (PMN P-14-510) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=94).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    15. Add § 721.10841 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10841 Bismuth nitrate oxide (Bi3(NO3)O4).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as bismuth nitrate oxide (Bi3(NO3)O4) (PMN P-14-603; CAS No. 1417164-49-8) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Protection in the workplace. Requirements as specified in § 721.63(a)(4), (a)(6)(i), and (c). When determining which persons are reasonably likely to be exposed as required for § 721.63(a)(4), engineering control measures (e.g., enclosure or confinement of the operation, general and local ventilation) or administrative control measures (e.g., workplace policies and procedures) shall be considered and implemented to prevent exposure, where feasible. The following National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified respirator with an assigned protection factor (APF) of at least 10 meets the minimum requirements for § 721.63(a)(4): NIOSH-certified air-purifying elastomeric half-mask respirator equipped with N100 (if oil aerosols absent), R100, or P100 filters.

    (ii) Industrial commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(j).

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (d), and (i) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    (3) Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section. The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.

    16. Add § 721.10842 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10842 Substituted cyclosiloxane (generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as substituted cyclosiloxane (PMN P-14-605) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Industrial commercial, and consumer activities. A significant new use is any use other than as a refractive index modifier component for light-emitting diode (LED) chips.

    (ii) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c), (i), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    17. Add § 721.10843 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10843 Substituted amide aromatic carboxylic acid, metal salt (generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substances identified generically as substituted amide aromatic carboxylic acid, metal salt (PMNs P-14-666 and P-14-668) are subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Industrial commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(j).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c), and (i) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of these substances.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    (3) Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section. The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.

    18. Add § 721.10844 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10844 Graphene nanoplatelets having a predominant thickness of 1-10 layers with lateral dimension predominantly less than 2 microns.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as graphene nanoplatelets having a predominant thickness of 1-10 layers with lateral dimension predominantly less than 2 microns (PMN P-14-763) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The requirements of this section do not apply to quantities of the PMN substance that have been embedded or incorporated into a polymer matrix that itself has been reacted (cured); embedded in a permanent solid polymer form that is not intended to undergo further processing, except mechanical processing; or imported into an article as defined at 40 CFR 720.3(c).

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Protection in the workplace. Requirements as specified in § 721.63(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6)(i), (a)(6)(ii), (b) (concentration set at 1.0 percent), and (c). When determining which persons are reasonably likely to be exposed as required for § 721.63(a)(4), engineering control measures (e.g., enclosure or confinement of the operation, general and local ventilation) or administrative control measures (e.g., workplace policies and procedures) shall be considered and implemented to prevent exposure, where feasible. The following National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified respirators meet the requirements of § 721.63(a)(4):

    (A) NIOSH-certified power air-purifying, tight-fitting full-face respirator equipped with an N-100, P-100, or R-100 cartridge.

    (B) NIOSH-certified power air-purifying particulate respirator with an assigned protection factor (APF) of at least 50.

    (ii) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(k), (q), and (y)(1).

    (iii) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1).

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (e), (i), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    (3) Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section. The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.

    19. Add § 721.10845 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10845 Methanaminium, N-[4-[[4-(dimethylamino)phenyl]phenylmethylene]-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]-N-methyl-, ethanedioate, ethanedioate (2:2:1).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as methanaminium, N-[4-[[4-(dimethylamino)phenyl]phenylmethylene]-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]-N-methyl-, ethanedioate, ethanedioate (2:2:1) (PMN P-14-781; CAS No. 2437-29-8) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Industrial commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(f).

    (ii) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=1).

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c), (i), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    20. Add § 721.10846 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10846 Sulfurized hydrocarbon (generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as sulfurized hydrocarbon (PMN P-14-811) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Industrial commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80. A significant new use is any use where less than 80 percent of the low molecular weight species are greater than 1,000 daltons.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c), and (i) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    (3) Determining whether a specific use is subject to this section. The provisions of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.

    21. Add § 721.10847 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10847 Oxiranemethanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-, bromide.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as oxiranemethanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-, bromide (PMN P-14-821; CAS No. 13895-77-7) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Industrial commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80(v)(1), (w)(1), and (x)(1).

    (ii) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=28).

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c), (i), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    22. Add § 721.10848 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10848 Aryloxyalkyl amine (generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as aryloxyalkyl amine (PMN P-14-875) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=44).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    23. Add § 721.10849 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10849 Phenol-biphenyl-formaldehyde polycondensate (generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as phenol-biphenyl-formaldehyde polycondensate (PMN P-15-115) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=5).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    24. Add § 721.10850 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10850 Polymer of phenol, biphenyl and resorcinol (generic).

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified generically as polymer of phenol, biphenyl and resorcinol (PMN P-15-116) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Release to water. Requirements as specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=5).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125(a) through (c), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    [FR Doc. 2015-13670 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0528; FRL-9928-59-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Kansas; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Kansas addressing the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110 for the 2010 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), which requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP to support implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0528. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Lachala Kemp, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7214; fax number: (913) 551-7065; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

    I. Background II. Summary of SIP Revision III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review I. Background

    On March 6, 2015, (80 FR 12109), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Kansas. The NPR proposed approval of Kansas' submission that provides the basic elements specified in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, or portions thereof, necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On July 15, 2013, EPA received a SIP submission from the state of Kansas that address the infrastructure elements specified in section 110(a)(2) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The submissions addressed the following infrastructure elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). Specific requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA and the rationale for EPA's proposed action to approve the SIP submission are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Kansas' submission which provides the basic program elements specified in section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) (prongs 3 and 4), (D)(ii) (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA, or portions thereof, necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as a revision to the Kansas SIP. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA. As discussed in each applicable section of the NPR, EPA is not acting on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under part D.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    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, 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 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

    • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, 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).

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 4, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 21, 2015. Becky Weber, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart R—Kansas 2. In § 52.870(e), the table is amended by adding entry (40) in numerical order to read as follows:
    § 52.870 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Kansas Nonregulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable
  • geographic area
  • or nonattainment
  • area
  • State
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * (40) Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS Statewide 7/15/2013 6/5/2015 and [Insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), except as noted.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13402 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0423; FRL-9928-78-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia (West Virginia) through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP). West Virginia's SIP revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing implementation plan addressing regional haze (regional haze SIP). EPA is approving West Virginia's SIP revision on the basis that it addresses the progress report and adequacy determination requirements for the first implementation period for regional haze.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0423. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of West Virginia's submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Asrah Khadr, (215) 814-2071, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On March 14, 2014 (79 FR 14460), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for West Virginia. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of West Virginia's progress report SIP, a report on progress made in the first implementation period towards RPGs for Class I areas in and outside West Virginia that are affected by emissions from West Virginia's sources. This progress report SIP and accompanying cover letter also included a determination that West Virginia's existing regional haze SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. On March 10, 2015 (80 FR 12607), EPA published a supplemental NPR (SNPR) to address the potential effects on EPA's proposed approval from the April 29, 2014 decision of the United States Supreme Court in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014), remanding to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for further proceedings and the D.C. Circuit's decision to lift the stay of CSAPR.

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area 1 within the state and in each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. The first progress report SIP is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. On June 18, 2008, WVDEP submitted its regional haze SIP in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.2 The progress report SIP revision was submitted by West Virginia on April 30, 2013 and EPA finds that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

    1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to “mandatory Class I Federal areas.” Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a “Federal Land Manager.” 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term “Class I area” in this action, we mean a “mandatory Class I Federal area.”

    2 On March 23, 2012 (77 FR 16937), EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of West Virginia's June 18, 2008 regional haze SIP to address the first implementation period for regional haze. The limited disapproval of this SIP was a result of West Virginia's reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to meet certain regional haze requirements. EPA addressed the deficiency identified in its limited disapproval with a federal implementation plan (FIP) in June 2012 that replaced West Virginia's reliance upon CAIR for certain regional haze requirements with reliance on CSAPR, a rule that EPA had issued in August 2011 to replace CAIR. 77 FR 33642 (final action on FIP to address certain West Virginia regional haze requirements). See also 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (promulgation of CSAPR). The D.C. Circuit initially vacated CSAPR in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 U.S. 2857 (2013); however, the United States Supreme Court vacated that decision and remanded CSAPR to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015 after the D.C. Circuit lifted its stay of CSAPR. Order of Dec. 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim final rulemaking clarifying how EPA will implement CSAPR).

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On April 30, 2013, West Virginia submitted a SIP revision to describe the progress made towards the RPGs of Class I areas in and outside West Virginia that are affected by emissions from West Virginia's sources. This progress report SIP also includes a determination of the adequacy of West Virginia's existing regional haze SIP to achieve these RPGs.

    West Virginia has two Class I areas within its borders: Dolly Sods Wilderness Area (Dolly Sods) and Otter Creek Wilderness Area (Otter Creek). West Virginia notes in its progress report SIP that West Virginia sources were also identified, through an area of influence modeling analysis based on back trajectories, as potentially impacting nine Class I areas in five neighboring states: Brigantine Wilderness in New Jersey; Great Smoky Mountains National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee; James River Face Wilderness in Virginia; Linville Gorge Wilderness in North Carolina; Monmouth Cave National Park in Kentucky; and Shenandoah National Park in Virginia.

    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) require a progress report SIP to address seven elements. EPA finds that West Virginia's progress report SIP addressed each element under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The seven elements and EPA's conclusion are briefly summarized in this rulemaking action.

    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) require progress report SIPs to include a description of the status of measures in the approved regional haze SIP; a summary of emissions reductions achieved; an assessment of visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state; an analysis of changes in emissions from sources and activities within the state; an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have limited or impeded progress in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; an assessment of the sufficiency of the approved regional haze SIP; and a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy. As explained in detail in the NPR and SNPR, EPA finds that West Virginia's progress report SIP addressed each element and has therefore satisfied the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g).

    In addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible actions based on information in the progress report. One possible action is submission of a negative declaration to EPA that no further substantive revision to the state's existing regional haze SIP is needed. In its progress report SIP, West Virginia submitted a negative declaration that it had determined that its existing regional haze SIP requires no further substantive revision to achieve the RPGs for the Class I areas that are affected by emissions from West Virginia's sources. As explained in detail in the NPR and SNPR, EPA concludes West Virginia has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility data trends at the Class I areas impacted by West Virginia's sources and the emissions trends of the largest emitters of visibility-impairing pollutants both indicate that the RPGs for 2018 will be met or exceeded. Therefore, EPA concludes West Virginia's progress report SIP meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(h).

    III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Response

    EPA received comments on the proposed rulemaking from the National Parks Conservation Association (Commenter). EPA received one additional comment on the SNPR from the Utility Air Regulatory Group (SNPR Commenter) in support of our proposed approval of West Virginia's progress report SIP. A full set of the comments are provided in the docket for today's final rulemaking action. A summary of the significant comments and the EPA's response is provided in this section.

    Comment 1: The Commenter stated that EPA should not approve the West Virginia progress report SIP revision because the report does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). The Commenter stated that the West Virginia progress report describes emission reductions in West Virginia but fails to detail specific reductions achieved through implementation of specific measures in the West Virginia regional haze SIP. The Commenter claimed that the report neither demonstrates that regional haze SIP measures are working nor that emission reductions or visibility improvement has resulted from enforceable requirements in the regional haze SIP and not from “outside forces.” More specifically, the Commenter claimed that reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) from shutdowns, fuel switches, addition of controls, shifting to the use of cleaner units, and a decrease in demand were reversible if not enforceable. The Commenter stated that emission reductions cannot be relied upon if not enforceable and requested EPA provide the reductions achieved through West Virginia's regional haze SIP and revise its assessment of the SIP revision.

    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that West Virginia has not adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) and that EPA cannot accordingly approve West Virginia's progress report SIP revision. While the regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) require a summary of the emissions reductions achieved in the State through the measures in its regional haze SIP, there is nothing in this provision requiring a detailed, causal analysis pinpointing or linking specific emission reductions to specific regional haze SIP measures.

    The Commenter's argument that West Virginia must specifically link specific measures in the regional haze SIP to changes in emissions inventories appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the design of the regional haze program and the purpose of the mid-course progress reports. The Regional Haze Rule,3 which was promulgated not long after the 1997 revisions to the ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), was explicitly designed to facilitate the coordination of emissions management strategies for regional haze with those needed to implement the NAAQS. See 64 FR 35713, 35719-35720 (July 1, 1999). More generally, the Regional Haze Rule requires states to include all air quality improvements that will be achieved by other CAA programs and state air pollution control requirements when assessing changes in emissions and visibility to be expected during the period of their regional haze SIP. 64 FR at 35733. This is made clear in the haze regulations which prohibit states from adopting RPGs that represent less visibility improvement than is expected to result from the implementation of other CAA requirements during the planning period. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Given this requirement, states included in their regional haze SIPs a number of Federal regulations for mobile and stationary sources that had or were expected to come into effect after the baseline period and that were anticipated to result in reductions of visibility impairing pollutants. These regulations included NAAQS implementation measures as well as other CAA requirements, such as mobile source rules or Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards issued under section 112 of the CAA. As one example, West Virginia included the 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule (40 CFR part 86, subpart P) in its regional haze SIP. In short, West Virginia, like other states, included in its regional haze SIP anticipated reductions in emissions during the baseline period arising from a number of Federal CAA measures, as required by the Regional Haze Rule.

    3 EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713) known as the Regional Haze Rule. The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, are included in the EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309.

    Thus, states took into account the anticipated emission reductions from a wide range of measures in setting RPGs. To model the visibility conditions in 2018, states used projected emission inventories based on the best information before them. Given the significance of emissions from EGUs to haze, these projections were based, among other things, on expected changes in energy demand affecting capacity utilization of power plants. States also sometimes included an emissions buffer to account for the possible construction of new power plants or other types of facilities. States also took into account, as described above, anticipated reductions in emissions resulting from recent Federal rules addressing non-visibility-related requirements, as well as consent decrees, significant measures adopted by nearby states, and specific measures to address the requirements of the visibility program. Thus, in forecasting future visibility conditions, states by design took into account to the extent possible “outside forces” and a host of overlapping requirements.

    The type of analysis underlying the RPGs established in regional haze SIPs involves a fair degree of uncertainty. Changes in economic conditions, fluctuations in the prices of fuels, the remand of a CAA requirement by the courts, or the passage of new regulations are some of the factors that may occur and can impact emissions inventories and monitored visibility conditions. Because each planning period requires states to forecast conditions ten or more years into the future, EPA required a mid-course evaluation of the regional haze SIP. The purpose of this progress report is to “check in” with the state to determine whether its predictions regarding future visibility remain reasonable. The purpose of summarizing the emission reductions throughout the state from the measures in the regional haze SIP is to ensure that no dramatic or unexpected changes in emissions inventories have rendered unreliable the earlier projections of emissions in 2018.

    In West Virginia's progress report SIP, EPA believes that West Virginia provided a reasonable summary of the emissions reductions achieved through the measures in the regional haze SIP by focusing on those sources of pollution in West Virginia with the biggest impact on haze. Because SO2 reductions from West Virginia's EGUs are the key element of the State's regional haze strategy, West Virginia discussed in its progress report SIP the significant SO2 emission reductions from EGUs since submittal of its regional haze SIP. West Virginia also assessed the downward trend in SO2 emissions and emission rates in comparison to heat input at these units and concluded that overall the data was indicative of the fact that the reductions were the result of the installation of controls and the use of cleaner burning fuels. See West Virginia State Implementation Plan Revision: Regional Haze 5-Year Periodic Report (Covering 2008-2013), Section 3.1 (April 30, 2013).4 Although West Virginia did not link the specific reductions in the emission inventory to specific measures in the regional haze SIP, the State did provide source-specific information on its coal-fired EGUs. For each of these units, the State identified the current status of SO2 controls and shutdowns as well as the projected controls and shutdowns that were included in the regional haze SIP and the estimated and actual SO2 reductions in 2009. Id. at p. 50-54 (Table 16). Taken together, West Virginia's summary of the SO2 emissions reductions is sufficient for the State to evaluate whether a mid-course correction in its regional haze SIP is needed. As West Virginia's progress report shows, emissions from these facilities are far below what was projected in its regional haze SIP.

    4 The April 30, 2013 West Virginia State Implementation Plan Revision: Regional Haze 5-Year Periodic Report (Covering 2008-2013) is available in the docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0423 at www.regulations.gov.

    In sum, EPA believes West Virginia sufficiently discussed in its progress report SIP revision the emission reductions which resulted from numerous enforceable requirements found in West Virginia's regional haze SIP. West Virginia's progress report discussed numerous Federal and state enforceable measures which are responsible for emissions reductions in West Virginia and which correlate to improved visibility, including the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the MACT programs, the 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule, the Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program, the Nonroad Diesel Emissions Program, Federal consent decrees resolving enforcement actions against EGUs and non-EGUs, and best available retrofit technology (BART) determinations for sources located within West Virginia and sources within a 300 kilometer radius of Dolly Sods or Otter Creek. West Virginia also discussed measures from other states which may have led to improvements in visibility in West Virginia including the North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act, Georgia Multipollutant Control for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, and the Maryland Health Air Act. Additionally, in the progress report SIP revision, West Virginia compared emissions inventories prior to and after the implementation of the West Virginia regional haze SIP, a comparison which show substantial reductions of visibility impairing pollutants such as SO2. Because West Virginia demonstrated that these Federal and state enforceable measures contributed to the reduction of visibility impairing pollutants, EPA concluded West Virginia adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requirements for a summary of emission reductions in its progress report. Therefore, EPA disagrees with the Commenter that EPA should disapprove the West Virginia progress report SIP and disagrees that any further information or analysis is required.

    Comment 2: The Commenter claimed that West Virginia's progress report SIP revision did not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) because the visibility data presented by West Virginia appeared within a graph and was not quantified in a clear, tabular manner. Additionally, the Commenter alleged that West Virginia confused the State's meeting the uniform rate of progress for Dolly Sods with meeting its RPGs for Dolly Sods.

    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that West Virginia's progress report is lacking the required visibility monitoring information. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) only requires the following visibility information measured in deciviews for the most impaired and least impaired days for each area, with values expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values: (1) Current visibility conditions; (2) the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions; and (3) the change in visibility impairment over the past five years. Nothing in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires the visibility data to be provided in a tabular format versus the graphical format used in West Virginia's progress report, even though a tabular format may facilitate easier review of the data. As stated in our NPR, EPA believes West Virginia provided the required information regarding visibility conditions and changes to meet the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), specifically providing current conditions based on the latest available Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data, the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the change in visibility impairment over the most recent five-year period for which data were available at the time of the progress report SIP development. EPA believes the fact that West Virginia presented this required information in graphical versus tabular format is irrelevant to our conclusion that West Virginia adequately addressed requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3).

    While EPA agrees with the Commenter that West Virginia did inadvertently state in its progress report on one page that it was “meeting its RPG” for Dolly Sods, EPA disagrees with the Commenter that this inadvertent misstatement has any relevance to the approvability of West Virginia's progress report generally or to EPA's conclusion that West Virginia has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) specifically, as discussed above and in the NPR. In particular, West Virginia appropriately discussed in its progress report on pages 59-60 that an analysis of emission reductions in West Virginia indicates the State is “on track to achieve” its RPGs in 2018 at Dolly Sods and that visibility at Dolly Sods had significantly improved since 2000. West Virginia's progress report also graphically displayed the State's progress towards its RPGs at Dolly Sods for 2018. Therefore, EPA views West Virginia's statement on one page that it is “meeting its RPG” as inadvertent as West Virginia otherwise correctly indicates in its progress report that the State is making reasonable progress towards achieving its RPGs at Dolly Sods by 2018. While EPA agrees with the Commenter that further emission reductions are needed for West Virginia to meet fully its RPGs in 2018 at Dolly Sods, EPA concludes West Virginia has appropriately addressed requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) through its presentation of visibility data. For the reasons discussed herein and discussed more fully in our NPR, EPA believes West Virginia has demonstrated it is making reasonable progress towards its RPGs for 2018 and that its regional haze SIP is adequate, requiring no further revisions to the regional haze SIP at this time for any additional emission reduction requirements for West Virginia to achieve its RPGs in 2018.

    Comment 3: The Commenter alleged that West Virginia's progress report SIP revision does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). The Commenter stated EPA's proposed approval of the West Virginia progress report SIP left unexamined West Virginia's assertion it was on track to meet its RPGs in 2018 and did not quantify how West Virginia's emission reductions would continue. The Commenter claimed projected emission reductions from Federal programs like the Mercury Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for EGUs and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS are neither quantified nor necessarily enforceable at this time. Additionally, the Commenter claimed none of the annual visibility values for Dolly Sods have yet achieved the RPGs and therefore more emission reductions are necessary. The Commenter stated EPA and West Virginia have avoided review of additional controls on non-EGUs. The Commenter claimed West Virginia committed in its regional haze SIP to review the need for additional controls at non-EGUs in its five-year progress report and therefore inappropriately concluded in its progress report that additional controls on non-EGUs were not necessary as the State was making progress towards its RPGs. The Commenter asserted some initial emission reductions in West Virginia resulted from controls, fuel switches, and shutdowns and as such are not necessarily enforceable. The Commenter claimed these reductions must be maintained and additional enforceable reductions from other source categories will be needed for West Virginia to meet its RPGs by 2018.

    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's allegation that West Virginia's progress report SIP revision does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this requirement as a qualitative assessment, in light of emissions and visibility trends and other readily available information, as to whether Class I areas affected by emissions from a state are on track to meet their 2018 RPGs. See Progress Report General Principles at 16. In the NPR, EPA has described in detail how West Virginia's progress report provides such a qualitative assessment that Class I areas impacted by emissions from sources within West Virginia are on track to achieve their RPGs by 2018. EPA believes that the enforceable measures taken into consideration in West Virginia's regional haze SIP have contributed to the significant emissions reductions in West Virginia as discussed in the progress report, particularly in the visibility impairing pollutant SO2. West Virginia's progress report included visibility monitoring data which clearly demonstrated visibility improvement in the Class I areas impacted by West Virginia sources. Even though the emissions reductions are not specifically linked causally to specific measures in the State's regional haze SIP, EPA believes the enforceable measures in the SIP do and will continue to contribute to reductions in emissions and that these measures have led to the visibility improvement indicated by monitored data contained in West Virginia's progress report SIP revision submittal. While West Virginia in its progress report did identify several factors not in the West Virginia regional haze SIP such as shutdowns and fuel switches that have reduced emissions from sources within the State, West Virginia did not rely on these to demonstrate that the implementation plan for the State is sufficient for purposes of this review. West Virginia included a discussion of these factors in the progress report to make clear that additional factors beyond the measures in the SIP and federal implementation plan (FIP) have contributed to the large emissions reductions seen throughout the state, particularly in SO2 emissions which have been identified as the primary contributor to visibility impairment in West Virginia and in the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) region. West Virginia did not account for these factors in its original regional haze SIP as the shutdowns and fuel switches occurred after the development of the regional haze SIP and in many cases are not enforceable, as noted by the commenter. However, for this progress report SIP revision and to address requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1)-(7), including 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) specifically, West Virginia only needed to show that it is on track to achieve its RPGs in 2018. According to the monitored visibility data presented in the State's progress report SIP submittal, West Virginia is on the glidepath to meeting its RPGs by 2018, and the Class I areas impacted by West Virginia sources are also on track to meet their RPGs by 2018. In addition, as discussed in the West Virginia progress report SIP submittal, many of the Federal and state measures in West Virginia's regional haze SIP are just beginning to be implemented and as such further emission reductions, particularly in SO2 emissions, can be expected which will enable West Virginia to continue to make further progress towards its RPGs for 2018.5 Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenters' assertion that more emissions reduction measures particularly from non-EGUs are needed for West Virginia's regional haze SIP for Dolly Sods and Otter Creek (or other Class I areas impacted by West Virginia emissions) to meet RPGs.

    5 Specifically, EPA notes that additional SO2 reductions will likely result from full implementation of MATS at West Virginia EGUs during this first implementation period, from additional implementation and restrictions from full implementation of CSAPR which EPA promulgated to replace CAIR and is expected to lead to further EGU emission reductions, and from West Virginia's implementation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Many coal-fired EGUs have also announced plans to deactivate in 2015 including several plants in West Virginia, including Albright, Kammer, Kanawha River, Phillip Sporn and Rivesville, as well as plants or individual units at plants in states neighboring West Virginia including Glen Lynn, Walter C. Beckjord, Muskingum River, Elrama, Clinch River, Eastlake, Ashtabula, and Big Sandy. Additional SO2 reductions will likely result from the deactivations of these coal-fired EGUs. For a listing of EGUs planning to deactivate in the states which are part of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., a regional transmission organization which coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity within states including West Virginia, see http://www.pjm.com/planning/generation-deactivation/gd-summaries.aspx.

    Comment 4: The Commenter stated that EPA cannot approve West Virginia's progress report as it relies on CAIR. The Commenter stated CAIR was “struck down” by the D.C. Circuit as fundamentally flawed. The Commenter also generally challenged the legality of using CAIR to meet any regional haze requirements. The Commenter “reiterated” its prior comments that CAIR is ill-suited to address regional haze and that EPA cannot use a “cap-and-trade” program with yearly averaging to address sources with hourly effects on Class I areas. The Commenter stated the lack of source-specific BART is an impediment to the implementation of the regional haze program. In addition, the Commenter stated that EPA had previously issued a limited disapproval of West Virginia's regional haze SIP due to reliance on CAIR. The Commenter stated EPA had also previously said in a rulemaking on Florida's regional haze SIP that the five year progress report would be the appropriate time to address any necessary changes to reasonable progress goal demonstrations and long term strategies. The Commenter mentioned both West Virginia's regional haze SIP and progress report SIP rely heavily on CAIR for modeling assumptions, controls, emission estimates, and as an alternative to source-specific BART requirements for EGUs. The Commenter mentioned EPA only addressed CAIR in the proposed approval of the progress report when discussing the limited disapproval of West Virginia's regional haze SIP and stated EPA's approval of the West Virginia progress report was inconsistent with prior EPA positions, unsupported by the facts and arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law.

    Response 4: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that EPA cannot approve West Virginia's five year progress report because the progress report relies on emission reductions from CAIR or because portions of West Virginia's regional haze SIP relied on CAIR.6 On March 23, 2012 (77 FR 16937), EPA finalized a limited approval and limited disapproval of West Virginia's June 18, 2008 regional haze SIP to address the first implementation period for regional haze.7 There was a limited disapproval of this SIP because of West Virginia's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements.8 In our SNPR, EPA described the litigation history and status of CAIR in great detail, including the fact that CAIR was replaced with CSAPR (76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011)) after West Virginia had developed and submitted its regional haze SIP. CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs in 28 states in the Eastern United States that significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On January 1, 2015, EPA sunset CAIR and began implementing CSAPR after the D.C. Circuit lifted the stay on CSAPR following the Supreme Court's decision upholding CSAPR.

    6 To address interstate transport of air pollution, CAIR required certain states like West Virginia to reduce emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) that significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5 and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR relied upon cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions and applied to 27 eastern states, including West Virginia. EPA approved West Virginia's regulations implementing CAIR as part of the Federally enforceable West Virginia SIP on August 4, 2009. 74 FR 38536.

    7 Although EPA gave limited approval to West Virginia's regional haze SIP (77 FR 16932) due to West Virginia's reliance on CAIR, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from granting a full approval pursuant to sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) of the CAA and EPA's long-standing guidance. See Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. Thus, the limited approval status of West Virginia's regional haze SIP does not impact EPA's approval of this five year progress report SIP in any way.

    8 In 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Therefore, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's characterization that CAIR was “struck down” by the Court as the D.C. Circuit has only remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur. After much litigation on CAIR and its replacement CSAPR as discussed in our SNPR, EPA sunset CAIR in December 2014 and began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim final rulemaking EPA issued an interim final rule to clarify how EPA will implement CSAPR consistent with the Order from D.C. Circuit order lifting the stay of CSAPR and tolling the rule's deadlines).

    As explained in detail in the SNPR and here in summary fashion, EPA does not believe that the status of CAIR or CSAPR affects the approvability of West Virginia's progress report SIP for several reasons. First, CAIR was in effect for the period of time addressed by West Virginia's progress report (2008-2013). Therefore, West Virginia appropriately evaluated and relied on CAIR reductions from EGUs of significant emissions of NOX and SO2 to demonstrate the State's progress towards meeting its RPGs.9 EPA's intention in requiring the progress reports pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g) was for the states to demonstrate progress achieved during the current implementation period addressed by the regional haze SIP. Thus, West Virginia appropriately relied upon CAIR reductions for demonstrating progress towards its RPGs from 2008-2013. And as explained in the SNPR, given that CAIR was in place until recently, it is appropriate to rely on CAIR emission reductions during this period for purposes of assessing the adequacy of West Virginia's progress report pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

    9 EPA discussed in the NPR the significance of reductions in SO2 as West Virginia and VISTAS identified SO2 as the largest contributor pollutant to visibility impairment in West Virginia specifically and in the VISTAS region generally.

    Second, the State's regional haze program now includes reliance on CSAPR for SO2 and NOX reductions, at least throughout the remainder of this first implementation period until 2018. EPA's June 7, 2012 FIP replaced West Virginia's reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to meet certain regional haze requirements. Because the Regional Haze Rule discusses requirements for “implementation plans” which are defined in the visibility program to include approved SIPs or FIPs, EPA considered measures in its June 7, 2012 regional haze FIP as well as in the State's regional haze SIP in assessing the State's progress report for 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). EPA explained in the SNPR that the requirements of the regional haze program are fully addressed in West Virginia through its SIP and the FIP issued by EPA. As also discussed in the SNPR, EPA expects the SO2 and NOX emissions reductions at EGUs in West Virginia to continue through the remainder of the first implementation period in 2018 due to implementation of CSAPR.

    Finally, the Regional Haze Rule provides for continual evaluation and assessment of a state's reasonable progress towards achieving the national goal of natural visibility conditions. West Virginia has the opportunity to reassess its RPGs and the adequacy of its regional haze SIP, including reliance upon CSAPR for emission reductions from EGUs, when it prepares and submits its second regional haze SIP to cover the implementation period from 2018 through 2028 or when the State prepares its next periodic progress report. However, as evaluated for this progress report, emissions of SO2 from EGUs are presently far below original projections for 2018, visibility data provided by West Virginia show the Federal Class I areas impacted by West Virginia sources are all on track to achieve their RPGs, and EPA expects SO2 emission reductions in West Virginia to continue through CSAPR and MATS and through expected EGU deactivations scheduled for 2015. These continued emission reductions will assist West Virginia in making reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions in 2064. As further measures will be needed to make continued progress towards the national goal, West Virginia has the opportunity to include such measures in subsequent SIPs for future implementation periods. See Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir. 1995)) (discussing that states have primary responsibility for determining an emission reductions program for its areas subject to EPA approval).

    Thus, neither the status of CAIR (which has now sunset) nor CSAPR (which is being implemented) impacts our decision to approve West Virginia's progress report SIP. This SIP includes an adequate discussion of the implementation of regional haze SIP measures—including CAIR—and of the significant emission reductions achieved.

    In addition, EPA disagrees with Commenter that EPA's approval of West Virginia's progress report which relies on CAIR reductions is inconsistent with EPA's prior actions. In fact, EPA has approved redesignations of areas to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in which states relied on CAIR as an “enforceable measure.” See 77 FR 76415 (December 28, 2012); 78 FR 59841 (September 30, 2013); and 78 FR 56168 (September 12, 2013).

    Because EPA expects SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs to continue through CSAPR and other measures and because future West Virginia regional haze SIP submissions due pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f) and (g) will continue to evaluate West Virginia's progress towards natural conditions, EPA believes it is appropriate to approve fully West Virginia's progress report as meeting requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1)-(7) and (h) at this time. Thus, EPA disagrees with the Commenter that EPA's approval of the West Virginia progress report is inconsistent with EPA's prior position, unsupported by the facts, or arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law.

    Further, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's “reiterated” statements concerning the validity of using an emissions trading program, such as CAIR or CSAPR, to meet regional haze requirements such as BART. As EPA's 2012 review of the West Virginia regional haze SIP explains, the State relied on CAIR to achieve significant reductions in emissions to meet both the BART requirements and to address impacts from West Virginia sources in Class I areas. 77 FR 16932. West Virginia's reliance upon CAIR as an alternative to source-specific BART at the time of the submittal of West Virginia's regional haze SIP in 2008 to EPA was supported by precedent from the D.C. Circuit as well as EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e). CAIR was specifically upheld as an alternative to BART in accordance with the requirements of section 169A of the CAA by the D.C. Circuit in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA. 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The D.C. Circuit concluded that the EPA's two-pronged test for determining whether an alternative program achieves greater reasonable progress was a reasonable one and also agreed with EPA that nothing in the CAA required the EPA to “impose a separate technology mandate for sources whose emissions affect Class I areas, rather than piggy-backing on solutions devised under other statutory categories, where such solutions meet the statutory requirements.” Id. at 1340. See also Center for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (finding reasonable EPA's interpretation of section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA as requiring BART only as necessary to make reasonable progress). Thus, EPA disagrees with the Commenter that EPA cannot use cap-and-trade programs to address effects of sources in Class I areas and disagrees that the use of alternatives to source-specific BART is an impediment to states achieving reasonable progress as required by section 169A of the CAA.

    EPA also notes in general that the comments regarding CAIR as adequate for regional haze requirements are beyond the scope of this rulemaking action. In this rulemaking action, EPA is finalizing approval of West Virginia's progress report SIP and did not propose to find that participation in CSAPR or CAIR is an alternative to BART in this rulemaking action. Moreover, EPA did not reopen discussions on the CAIR or CSAPR provisions as they relate to BART in assessing the progress report.10

    10 In a separate action, EPA found CSAPR is “Better than BART.” See 76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011) (proposal of CSAPR as “Better than BART”) and 77 FR 33641 (June 7, 2012) (addressing comments concerning CSAPR as a BART alternative in the final action). EPA's responses to these comments can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 at www.regulations.gov.

    Finally, EPA also generally disagrees with the Commenter that EPA did not discuss CAIR in EPA's NPR. EPA discussed CAIR, as well as emission reductions from CAIR, when assessing West Virginia's five year progress report as meeting requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2). CAIR, as an EGU control strategy, was one measure from West Virginia's regional haze SIP discussed in EPA's analysis of implementation of SIP measures for 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1), and emission reductions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs generally resulting from implementation of CAIR are discussed in EPA's analysis of West Virginia's progress report for 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). See 79 FR at 11462-11463. In addition, in EPA's SNPR, EPA discussed the litigation history and status of CAIR and CSAPR and the effects of those programs on West Virginia's regional haze SIP in detail and provided an opportunity for comment on these issues. 80 FR at 12609-12611.

    In summary, EPA does not view West Virginia's reliance through December 2014 upon CAIR for BART or for any other part of the regional haze SIP as a reason to disapprove the West Virginia progress report.

    Comment 5: The Commenter expressed support for the maintenance of the IMPROVE visibility monitoring network. The Commenter stated it would like funding to continue for this monitoring network and would like EPA to advocate for funding of this network. The Commenter also stated its support for continuing funding for VISTAS' work for additional “understanding of source contributions to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment or continued operation of VISTAS Web site.”

    Response 5: EPA thanks the Commenter for expressing its support for the IMPROVE monitoring network and for the work by VISTAS. In its progress report SIP, West Virginia summarized the existing visibility monitoring network at Dolly Sods and Otter Creek and discussed the State's intended continued reliance on the IMPROVE monitoring network for its visibility planning. West Virginia concluded that the existing network is adequate and that no modifications to visibility monitoring strategy were necessary. In EPA's NPR, EPA concluded that West Virginia adequately addressed the sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7), and EPA accordingly proposed approval of the West Virginia progress report. Additional funding concerns for VISTAS as raised by the Commenter are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

    Comment 6: The SNPR Commenter stated that EPA's reasons to approve the progress report are sound and stated it supported approval of the progress report SIP. The SNPR Commenter stated that CAIR was in the West Virginia SIP and in effect and enforceable throughout the period relevant to West Virginia's assessment of progress. The SNPR Commenter also agreed with EPA that EPA may consider a FIP as well as a SIP in evaluating a regional haze program under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h). Finally, the SNPR Commenter stated EPA had a sound basis to approve the West Virginia progress report SIP based on the status of CAIR and CSAPR and stated reliance on CSAPR for further progress toward applicable RPGs in West Virginia and other affected states was appropriate as CSAPR has taken effect. The SNPR Commenter noted, however, that EPA had no valid basis for its limited disapproval of West Virginia's regional haze SIP based on West Virginia's reliance upon CAIR as a BART alternative.

    Response 6: EPA appreciates the supportive comments from the SNPR Commenter and its agreement with EPA's analysis in the NPR and SNPR. The SNPR Commenter's statement regarding EPA's prior limited approval of West Virginia's regional haze SIP is beyond the scope of this rulemaking and therefore no further response is provided.

    IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving West Virginia's regional haze five-year progress report SIP revision, submitted on April 30, 2013, as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

    • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 4, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

    This action to approve West Virginia's regional haze five-year progress report SIP revision may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 26, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart XX—West Virginia 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry for Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2520 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic
  • area
  • State
  • submittal date
  • EPA approval date Additional
  • explanation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report Statewide 4/30/13 6/5/15 [Insert Federal Register Citation]
    [FR Doc. 2015-13801 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0228; FRL-9928-07-Region 9] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) and Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from polyester resin operations and oil-water separators. The EPA is approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

    DATES:

    These rules are effective on August 4, 2015 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by July 6, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0228 by one of the following methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to the EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules D. Public Comment and Final Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.

    Table 1—Submitted Rules Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted/amended Submitted EKAPCD 432 Polyester Resin Operations 03/13/2014 07/25/2014 MDAQMD 464 Oil-Water Separators 06/23/2014 11/6/2014

    On September 11, 2014, the EPA determined that the submittal for EKAPCD Rule 432 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On December 18, 2014, the EPA determined that the submittal for MDAQMD Rule 464 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.

    B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 432 in the SIP. We approved an earlier version of Rule 464 into the SIP on September 27, 1995 (60 FR 49772).

    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions.

    The purpose of Rule 432 is to reduce VOC emissions from polyester resin operations. Rule 432 requires that for open molding processes, operators must use materials that comply with limits specified in Table 1 of the rule. It also sets requirements for non-monomer VOC content and for the use of resins containing a vapor suppressant. Rule 432 requires use of a closed-mold system or installation and operation of a VOC emission control system that meets specific requirements, including an overall capture and control efficiency of at least 90 percent by weight. In addition, the rule sets requirements for touch up, repair, and small jobs, spray application, organic solvents used in cleaning operations, and solvent storage and disposal. Rule 432 provides exemptions for small uses and certain solvent cleaning operations. It includes recordkeeping requirements, test methods, and compliance schedules.

    The purpose of Rule 464 is to reduce VOC emissions from oil-water separators. Revised Rule 464 updates the rule's applicability to include additional oil-water separators, specifies cover seal tolerances, updates the required overall control efficiency from 90% to 95%, addresses the processing of oil or tar skimmed from separators, reduces the threshold for fugitive leak violations, clarifies exemptions, extends the recordkeeping requirement to 5 years, and adds test methods.

    EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules.

    II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations” (“the Bluebook,” U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; revised January 11, 1990).

    2. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies” (“the Little Bluebook”, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001).

    Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each VOC major source in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)).

    The EPA has designated the EKAPCD as a Moderate nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and as a Marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. See 40 CFR 81.305. Rule 432 must implement RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard because RACT requirements apply in areas designated as Moderate or above (i.e., or Serious, Severe, or Extreme).

    The EPA has designated a portion of the MDAQMD as a Severe nonattainment area for both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone standards. Rule 464 must implement RACT because RACT requirements apply in areas designated as Moderate or above.

    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

    C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agencies modify the rules but are not currently the basis for rule disapproval.

    D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by July 6, 2015, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on August 4, 2015. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

    Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the EKAPCD and MDAQMD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

    • does not provide the 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 the 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).

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 4, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 8, 2015. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(447)(i)(D) and (c)(457)(i)(B) to read as follows:
    § 52.220 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (447) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (D) Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District.

    (1) Rule 432, “Polyester Resin Operations,” adopted on March 13, 2014.

    (457) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (B) Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.

    (1) Rule 464, “Oil-Water Separators,” amended on June 23, 2014.

    [FR Doc. 2015-13680 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0265; FRL-9927-65] n-Butyl benzoate; Exemptions From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of n-butyl benzoate (CAS Reg. No. 136-60-7) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, raw agricultural commodities after harvest, and animals and when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial formulations in food-contact surface sanitizer products at a maximum level in the end-use concentration of 15,000 parts per million (ppm). Exponent, Inc., on behalf Huntsman Corp., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of n-butyl benzoate.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective June 5, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 4, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0265, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select “Test Methods and Guidelines.”

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0265 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 4, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0265, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of October 24, 2014 (Vol. 79 FR 63594) (FRL-9916-03), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10682) by Exponent, Inc., 1150 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20035 on behalf Huntsman Corp., 8600 Gosling Road, The Woodlands, TX 77381. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910, 180.930, and 180.940 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of n-butyl benzoate (CAS Reg. No. 136-60-7) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, raw agricultural commodities after harvest, and animals and when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial formulations in food-contact surface sanitizer products. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Exponent, Inc., on behalf Huntsman Corp., the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No tolerance-related comments were received on the notice of filing.

    Based on a review of the data submitted in support of this petition, EPA has modified the exemption requested by limiting the amount of n-butyl benzoate allowed in food contact sanitizing solutions to a maximum 15,000 ppm (1.5%). This limitation is based on the Agency's risk assessment which can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “n-Butyl Benzoate; Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations,” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0265.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for n-butyl benzoate including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with n-butyl benzoate follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by n-butyl benzoate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

    In acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity studies in rats, n-butyl benzoate was found to be slightly toxic to nontoxic. In primary eye and dermal irritation studies in rabbits, n-butyl benzoate was found to be minimally irritating. In a dermal sensitization study in guinea pigs, n-butyl benzoate was not a dermal sensitizer.

    In a combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test, n-butyl benzoate was administered daily to rats by gavage at doses of 0 (vehicle control), 250, 500 and 1,000 mg/kg bw/day. The NOAEL for parental toxicity was 1,000 mg/kg/day; the highest dose tested. The LOAEL for parental toxicity was not observed in this study. The NOAEL for embryo-fetal toxicity was 500 mg/kg bw/day based on increased pup mortality on post-natal day zero observed at the LOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day.

    No positive mutagenic response was observed for n-butyl benzoate in a reverse bacterial mutation assay.

    No chronic toxicity data for n-butyl benzoate are available.

    There are no cancer studies available for n-butyl benzoate. n-Butyl benzoate is metabolized by esterase mediated hydrolysis resulting in the formation of two major polar metabolites, n-butyl alcohol and benzoic acid. Each metabolite enters other degradation pathways to be rapidly metabolized and/or excreted. Based on predicted rapid metabolism and excretion, the lack of specific target organ toxicity in the OCSPP Harmonized Test Guideline 870.3650 study, the results of genotoxicity testing being negative, and a Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) expert model, DEREK Nexus, that indicates no structural alerts for carcinogenicity, n-butyl benzote is not expected to be carcinogenic.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    1. Acute dietary (all populations). There were no adverse effects observed attributable to a single dose for the general population (including infants and children) or females 13-49 years of age.

    2. Chronic dietary (all populations). The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) of 5 mg/kg/day is established based on the NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day from a combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test in rats. The adverse effects seen in this study were increased pup mortality observed at the LOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor/database uncertainty factor of 1X and 10X intra- and interspecies uncertainty factors are utilized for dietary risk assessment.

    3. Dermal, short- and intermediate-term. The level of concern (LOC) for short- and intermediate-term dermal exposure is a margin of exposure (MOE) of 100 and the assessment is based on the NOAEL (500 mg/kg/day) from the combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test in rats.

    4. Inhalation, short- and intermediate term. The LOC for short- and intermediate-term inhalation exposure is a MOE of 100 and the assessment is based on the NOAEL (500 mg/kg/day) from the combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test in rats.

    5. Quantification of cancer risk is not appropriate since there are no concerns for cancer based on data that n-butyl benzoate is metabolized by esterase mediated hydrolysis resulting in the formation of two major polar metabolites, n-butyl alcohol and benzoic acid, neither substance being a concern for cancer. In addition, there is a lack of specific target organ toxicity in the OCSPP Harmonized Test Guideline 870.3650 study, the results of genotoxicity testing for n-butyl benzoate are negative, and QSAR expert model, DEREK Nexus, indicates that there are no structural alerts for carcinogenicity. As such, n-butyl benzote is not expected to be carcinogenic.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to n-butyl benzoate, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from n-butyl benzoate in food as follows:

    The Agency assessed the dietary exposures to n-butyl benzoate as an inert ingredient for use in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, raw agricultural commodities, and livestock as well as an inert ingredient for use in food-contact surface sanitizing solutions. In the case of dietary exposures to n-butyl benzoate as an inert ingredient used in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, raw agricultural commodities, and livestock, a chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model/Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID)TM, Version 3.16. EPA used food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, no residue data were submitted for n-butyl benzoate. In the absence of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach that uses surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure estimates for the subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure estimates are based on the highest tolerance for a given commodity from a list of high-use insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. A complete description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled “Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts.” (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.

    In the case of the proposed use of n-butyl benzoate as an inert ingredient in food-contact sanitizing pesticide products, EPA has utilized a conservative, health-protective method of estimating dietary intake that is based upon conservative assumptions related to the amount of residues that can be transferred to foods as a result of the proposed use. This same methodology has been utilized by FDA in estimating dietary exposures to antimicrobial pesticides used in food-handling settings. A complete description of the approach used to assess dietary exposures resulting from food contact sanitizing solution uses of n-butyl benzoate can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “n-Butyl Benzoate; Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations,” pp. 13-15 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0265.

    The exposures from food and food contact sanitizing are then added together for the final dietary exposure assessment.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for n-butyl benzoate, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 ppb based on screening level modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments for parent compound. These values were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

    There are no current or proposed residential uses for n-butyl benzoate, however it is possible that n-butyl benzoate may be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that may have uses resulting in potential residential exposures. A complete description of the approach used to assess possible residential exposures from n-butyl benzoate can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “n-Butyl Benzoate; Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations,” pp. 16 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0265.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA has not found n-butyl benzoate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and n-butyl benzoate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that n-butyl benzoate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is an evidence of increased susceptibility of infants and children in the OECD 422 study in rats. In this study, the NOAEL for parental toxicity was 1,000 mg/kg/day; the highest dose tested while the NOAEL for embryo-fetal toxicity was 500 mg/kg/day based on increased pup mortality on post-natal day zero seen at the LOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day. However, the concern for this susceptibility is low because there is clear NOAEL established in the study protecting the offspring, and regulatory doses were selected to be protective of these effects. No other residual uncertainties were identified with respect to susceptibility. The endpoints and doses selected for the dietary risk assessment of n-butyl benzoate are protective of adverse effects in both offspring and adults.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for n-butyl benzoate contains acute toxicity, subchronic toxicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, and genotoxicity data. No immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity study is available; however, there was no evidence of any triggers for immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity in the database. Therefore, there is no need for immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity study at this time and no need for additional uncertainty factor for the lack of those studies.

    ii. Although there is evidence that n-butyl benzoate results in increased susceptibility in the combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test in rats, that study identified a clear NOAEL for offspring effects, which the Agency is using as the endpoint for its assessment. Therefore, the concern for these effects is low and there is no need for an additional uncertainty factor.

    iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues, as well as conservative assumptions for food-contact surface sanitizers. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to n-butyl benzoate in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by n-butyl benzoate.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, n-butyl benzoate is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to n-butyl benzoate from food and water will utilize 21.0% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and 94.1% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). While n-butyl benzoate is not currently used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for uses that could result in short- or intermediate-term residential exposure, it is possible that n-butyl benzoate could be used in such products and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with potential short- and intermediate-term residential exposures to n-butyl benzoate.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate short- and intermediate-term MOEs of 320 for adults and 100 for children (1-2 years old). EPA's level of concern for n-butyl benzoate is a MOE of 100 or below; however these MOEs are not of concern based on the highly conservative assumptions made regarding residential and dietary exposures to n-butyl benzoate as described in Unit IV. Section C.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on data that n-butyl benzoate is metabolized by esterase mediated hydrolysis resulting in the formation of two major polar metabolites, n-butyl alcohol and benzoic acid. Each metabolite enters other degradation pathways to be rapidly metabolized and/or excreted, n-butyl benzoate is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to n-butyl benzoate residues.

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method for enforcement purposes is not required for n-butyl benzoate in pesticide formulations that include uses on crops for pre- and post-harvest, and on animals, since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

    An analytical method is also not required for enforcement purposes for n-butyl benzoate on food-contact surfaces in antimicrobial applications since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of n-butyl benzoate in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of n-butyl benzoate that may be used in food-contact surface antimicrobial applications. That limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any food-contact surface antimicrobial applications for sale or distribution that contains greater than 15,000 ppm (1.5%) of n-butyl benzoate by weight.

    VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance are established under 40 CFR 180.910, 180.930, and 180.940(a) for n-butyl benzoate (CAS Reg. No. 136-60-7) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, raw agricultural commodities after harvest, and animals, and when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial formulations in food-contact surface sanitizer products at a maximum level in the end-use concentration of 15,000 parts per million (ppm).

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemptions in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 29, 2015. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.910, add alphabetically the inert ingredient to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *    *    *    *    * n-Butyl benzoate (CAS Reg. No.136-60-7) Solvent. *    *    *    *    *
    3. In § 180.930, add alphabetically the inert ingredient to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.930 Inert ingredients applied to animals; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *    *    *    *    * n-Butyl benzoate (CAS RN 136-60-7) Solvent. *    *    *    *    *
    4. In § 180.940(a) add alphabetically the inert ingredient to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.940 Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact surface sanitizing solutions).

    (a) * * *

    Pesticide chemical CAS Reg. No. Limits *         *         *         *         *         *         * n-Butyl benzoate 136-60-7 When ready for use, the end-use concentration is not to exceed 15,000 ppm. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-13818 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0207; FRL-9927-66] Aluminum Sulfate; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of aluminum sulfate (CAS Reg. No. 10043-01-3) under 40 CFR 180.940(a). This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of aluminum sulfate.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective June 5, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before August 4, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0207, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select “Test Methods and Guidelines.”

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0207 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before August 4, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0207, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of May 2, 2012, (77 FR 25954) (FRL-9346-1), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 1E7933) by Exponent Inc., 1150 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036, on behalf of Ecolab, Inc., 370 N. Wabasha Street, St. Paul, MN 55102. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180.940(a) be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of aluminum sulfate for use as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils at a maximum end use concentration not to exceed 50 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Exponent, Inc., which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

    III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by aluminum sulfate is discussed in this unit.

    The acute oral toxicity of aluminum sulfate is low. The acute oral lethal dose (LD)50 in male rats is >5,000 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg). No acute dermal or inhalation toxicity studies are available on aluminum sulfate. It is not a dermal irritant and is minimally irritating to the eyes. No skin sensitization studies are available.

    The points of departure (PODs) used for the chronic and short-term risk assessments for aluminum sulfate were based on an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guideline 416, 2-generation rat oral reproduction study with aluminum sulfate (equivalent to OCSPP Harmonized Test Guideline 870.3800) in which the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) was 188 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) (equivalent to 37 mg aluminum (Al)/kg/day) based on decreased body weight from pups and parents and delay in vaginal opening. The no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) was 41 mg/kg/day aluminum sulfate (equivalent to 8.06 mg Al/kg/day.

    Apart from the 2-generation rat oral reproduction study described above, limited data are available on aluminum sulfate. However, since ingested aluminum sulfate will readily dissociate in the stomach to aluminum (as will many other aluminum compounds), toxicology data on aluminum compounds as well as aluminum sulfate are considered in determining the acceptability and completeness of the toxicological data relevant to aluminum sulfate.

    Aluminum compounds have been evaluated by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ASTDR, 2008) and as part of the toxicological profile of aluminum, ASTDR notes that “There is a rather extensive database on the oral toxicity of aluminum in animals. These studies clearly identify the nervous system as the most sensitive target of aluminum toxicity and most of the animal studies have focused on neurotoxicity and neurodevelopmental toxicity. Other adverse effects that have been observed in animals orally exposed to aluminum include impaired erythropoiesis in rats exposed to 230 mg Al/kg/day and higher; erythrocyte damage (as evidenced by decreases in hemoglobin, hematocrit, and erythrocyte osmotic fragility, and altered erythrocyte morphology) in rats exposed to 230 mg Al/kg/day and higher; increased susceptibility to infection in mouse dams exposed to 155 mg Al/kg/day; delays in pup maturation following exposure of rats to 53 mg Al/kg/day; and decreases in pup body weight gain in rats and mice exposed to 103 mg Al/kg/day and higher. Oral studies in rats and mice have not found significant histopathological changes in the brain under typical exposure conditions; however, altered myelination was found in the spinal cord of mouse pups exposed to 330 mg Al/kg/day on gestation day 1 through postnatal day 35. Overt signs of neurotoxicity are rarely reported at the doses tested in the available animal studies (≤330mg Al/kg/day for bioavailable aluminum compounds); rather, exposure to these doses is associated with subtle neurological effects detected with neurobehavioral performance tests. Significant alterations in motor function, sensory function, and cognitive function have been detected following exposure to adult or weanling rats and mice or following gestation and/or lactation exposure of rats and mice to aluminum lactate, aluminum nitrate, and aluminum chloride. The most consistently affected performance tests were forelimb and/or hindlimb grip strength, spontaneous motor activity, thermal sensitivity, and startle responsiveness. Significant impairments in cognitive function have been observed in some studies, although this has not been found in other studies even at higher doses. Adverse neurological effects have been observed in rats and mice at doses of 100-200 mg Al/kg/day and neurodevelopmental effects have been observed in rats and mice at doses of 103-330 mg Al/kg/day.”

    There are no available carcinogenicity studies with aluminum sulfate; however, in a cancer study with aluminum potassium sulfate, there were no exposure-related increased incidences of tumors, other proliferative lesions, or non-neoplastic lesions in B6C3F1 mice that ingested ≤979 mg Al/kg/day as aluminum potassium sulfate in the diet for 20 months. Based on this information, aluminum sulfate is not expected to be a carcinogen.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by aluminum sulfate as well as the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies are discussed in “Aluminum Sulfate: Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment for Proposed Exemption from the Requirement for a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in Antimicrobial Pesticide Formulations Applied to Food-Contact Surfaces” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0267.

    A. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological POD and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a RfD—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for aluminum sulfate used for human risk assessment is discussed below:

    Acute Dietary Endpoint. No appropriate endpoint was identified from any of the aluminum sulfate studies in the database, including developmental toxicity studies in the rat. Consequently, EPA determined that there was no basis for selecting a dose and endpoint for an acute POD for the general population or females 13-49 years old.

    Chronic Dietary Endpoint. A 2-generation reproduction study of aluminum sulfate in rats was considered critical in establishing the POD for chronic dietary risk assessment. The study supports a NOAEL of 41 mg/kg/day and a LOAEL of 188 mg/kg/day for decreased body weight in parents and pups and a delay in vaginal opening and should be used as the POD for all durations and exposure scenarios. An uncertainty factor (UF) of 100X (10X for interspecies extrapolation and 10X for intraspecies variation) is applied to obtain a chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.41 mg/kg/day. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) factor is reduced to 1X. The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) is 0.41 mg/kg/day. This cPAD is protective of potential neurotoxicological effects of aluminum compounds.

    B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Exposures to aluminum sulfate can occur following ingestion of foods with residues from food-contact surface sanitizing solutions for public eating places, treated dairy- and food-processing equipment and utensils as well as pre-harvest crop uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to aluminum sulfate, EPA considered exposure under the requested exemption from the requirement of a tolerance as well as exposures from existing uses of aluminum sulfate under the extant exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.920. EPA assessed dietary exposures from aluminum sulfate in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide chemical, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for aluminum sulfate; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. The chronic dietary exposure assessment for this inert ingredient utilizes the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID), Version 3.16, EPA, which includes food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, “What We Eat In America”, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. In the absence of actual residue data, the inert ingredient evaluation is based on a highly conservative model that assumes that the residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the highest established tolerance for an active ingredient on a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is that there would be similar rates of degradation between the active and inert ingredient (if any) and that the concentration of inert ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient. The model assumes 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all crops and that every food eaten by a person each day has tolerance-level residues. A complete description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled “Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts” (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.

    Additionally, a dietary exposure assessment of aluminum sulfate resulting from the requested use in antimicrobial food-contact surface sanitizing solutions was conservatively assumed that 100% of the diet results from food treated with food-contact surface sanitizers and that 100% of the sanitizing solution is transferred into food. A highly conservative model based on FDA assumptions regarding transfer of food contact sanitizing solution residues to food is utilized.

    The dietary exposure values derived from both the conservative model used to estimate residues from application to growing crops are combined with the exposures estimated from the antimicrobial food-contact sanitizer uses.

    iii Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that aluminum sulfate is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for aluminum sulfate, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 parts per billion (ppb) based on screening level modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessment of aluminum sulfate. This value was directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

    There are no registered pesticide products containing aluminum sulfate as an inert ingredient for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA has not found aluminum sulfate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and aluminum sulfate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that aluminum sulfate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In a 2-generation reproduction toxicity study, there was no evidence of increased susceptibility of infants and children to aluminum sulfate. In this study, the offspring and parental toxicity NOAEL was 41 mg/kg/day based on decreased weight gain in offspring, decreased body weight in parental animals, and a delay in vaginal opening seen at the LOAEL of 188 mg/kg/day.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for aluminum sulfate includes a 2-generation reproduction study, as well as chronic/carcinogenicity studies, mutagenicity studies, neurotoxicity studies and developmental neurotoxicity studies on other related aluminum compounds. The Agency concludes that for this ingredient, the results of these studies provide a reliable basis for assessing the range of potential effects to infants and children, such that the Agency has determined that no additional data are necessary at this time to evaluate effects to infants and children.

    ii. There are available data on neurotoxicity and developmental neurotoxicity on aluminum compounds. The point of departure selected for risk assessment is based on a 2-generation rat reproductive toxicity study with aluminum sulfate, in which adverse effects were identified at dose levels below the dose levels at which neurotoxic effects or developmental neurotoxicological effects were observed and is therefore protective of those effects; no additional UFs are required to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility due to pre-or post-natal exposure to aluminum in infants and children.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and residues equivalent to the highest established tolerance-level residues for every food commodity. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions utilizing a 100 ppb default value in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to aluminum sulfate in drinking water. In addition, highly conservative assumptions were utilized in assessing exposures to aluminum sulfate resulting from the proposed use in food-contact surface antimicrobial pesticide formulations. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by aluminum sulfate.

    D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and cPAD. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified, therefore, an acute dietary exposure assessment was not conducted.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to aluminum sulfate from food and water will utilize 6.7% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term/intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, aluminum sulfate is not used as inert ingredient in any pesticide product registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term or intermediate-term residential exposure. Because there is no short-term or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term risk for aluminum sulfate.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in a rodent carcinogenicity study with aluminum potassium sulfate, aluminum sulfate is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to aluminum sulfate residues.

    VII. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of aluminum sulfate that may be used in food-contact surface antimicrobial applications. That limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any food-contact surface antimicrobial applications for sale or distribution that contains greater than 50 ppm of aluminum sulfate by weight.

    VIII. Conclusion

    Therefore, an exemption is established for residues of aluminum sulfate for use as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils at a maximum end use concentration not to exceed 50 ppm.

    IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    X. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 29, 2015. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.940, add alphabetically the following inert ingredient to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 180.940 Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact surface sanitizing solutions).

    (a) * * *

    Pesticide chemical CAS Reg. No. Limits *         *         *         *         *         *         * Aluminum sulfate 10043-01-3 When ready for use, the end-use concentration is not to exceed 50 ppm. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-13821 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED 41 CFR Part 51-6 Military Resale Commodities AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (the Committee) has in its procurement program nonprofit agencies that sell products to military commissary stores for resale. The items sold are assigned to specific number series so that the nonprofit agencies, the Committee, and the military stores may identify the specific products. The number series are only used for identification of specific products sold in the military stores. These product numbers are internal only to the Committee, the nonprofit agencies, and the military commissaries. This rule adds additional number series to the authorized series so that replacement products may have their own unique identifying numbers.

    DATES:

    Effective June 5, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee's regulation at 41 CFR 51-6.4, Military Resale Commodities, requires military commissary stores and other military resale outlets to stock certain products in the Committee's program, which are identified by special military resale number series. 41 CFR 51-6.4 references number series 0- (0-99), 200-, 300-, 400-, 500-, 600-, 700-, 800-, 900-, 1000-, 1100-, 1200- (1200-9999), and 10000- (10000-10999), with the 300-800-, 900-, 1000-, 1100-, and 10000- (10000-10999) series being stocked exclusively and all series being stocked in as broad a range as practicable. Additional number series are required because the numbers cannot be re-used after being assigned to a product. The expansion of the number series will not expand the scope of the military resale products, rather it will allow for the effective administration and maintenance of the military resale program at its current level. This final rule adds series 11000 (11000-11999); 12000 (12000-12999); 13000 (13000-13999); 14000 (14000-14999); 15000 (15000-15999); and 16000 (16000-16999) to 41 CFR 51-6.4(b), (c)(2), (c)(4), and (d) to be stocked in as broad a range as practicable.

    Executive Order 12866: This agency has made the determination that this rule is not significant for the purposes of EO 12866.

    Administrative Procedure Act: The Committee finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) that good cause exists to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This final rule simply adds numbers to a series of number that already exist. These series are internal to this agency and have no impact on nonprofit agencies not working in the military resale area. National Industries for the Blind, a central nonprofit agency in the Committee's program, requested these specific number series on behalf of the nonprofit agencies that participate in the military resale arena. The Defense Commissary Agency also asked the Committee to take this action. Since both the Federal and nonprofit agencies requested these number series, it is highly unlikely that there would be any adverse comments on this rule. Because this amendment is not a substantive change to the regulation, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. Further, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), this rule of agency organization, procedure and practice is not subject to the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment. The Committee also finds that the 30-day delay in effectiveness, required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), is inapplicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. This final rule merely expands the series of item numbers for use in the military resale program.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act: Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and has not been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 51-6

    Procurement procedures.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the committee amends 41 CFR part 51 as follows:

    PART 51-6—PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 51-6 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 8501-8506.

    2. In § 51-6.4 revise paragraphs (b), (c)(2), (c)(4), and (d) to read as follows:
    § 51-6.4 Military resale commodities.

    (b) Authorized resale outlets shall stock military resale commodities in as broad a range as practicable. Authorized resale outlets may stock commercial items comparable to military resale commodities they stock, except that military commissary stores shall stock military resale commodities in the 300-800-, 900-, 1000-, 1100-, 10000- (10000-10999), 11000 (11000-11999); 12000 (12000-12999); 13000 (13000-13999); 14000 (14000-14999); 15000 (15000-15999); and 16000 (16000-16999) series exclusively, unless an exception has been granted on an individual store basis for the stocking of comparable commercial items for which there is a significant customer demand.

    (c) * * *

    (2) Require the stocking in commissary stores of military resale commodities in the 0- (0-99), 200-, 300-, 400-, 500-, 600-, 700-, 800-, 900-, 1000-, 1100-, 1200- (1200-9999), 10000- (10000-10999), 11000 (11000-11999); 12000 (12000-12999); 13000 (13000-13999); 14000 (14000-14999); 15000 (15000-15999); and 16000 (16000-16999) series in as broad a range as is practicable.

    (4) Establish policies and procedures which reserve to its agency headquarters the authority to grant exceptions to the exclusive stocking of 300-, 800-, 900-, 1000-, 1100-, 10000- (10000-10999), 11000 (11000-11999); 12000 (12000-12999); 13000 (13000-13999); 14000 (14000-14999); 15000 (15000-15999); and 16000 (16000-16999) series military resale commodities.

    (d) The Defense Commissary Agency shall provide the Committee a copy of each directive which relates to the stocking of military resale commodities in commissary stores, including exceptions authorizing the stocking of commercial items in competition with 300-, 800-, 900-, 1000-, 1100-, 10000- (10000-10999), 11000 (11000-11999); 12000 (12000-12999); 13000 (13000-13999); 14000 (14000-14999); 15000 (15000-15999); and 16000 (16000-16999) series military resale commodities.

    Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13793 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 49 CFR Part 10 [Docket No. OST-2014-0142] RIN 2105-AE36 Maintenance of and Access to Records Pertaining to Individuals AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 2, 2014, the Department published an interim final rule requesting comment to conform the DOT's regulations on Maintenance of and Access to Records Pertaining to Individuals to the applicable System of Records Notices (SORNs) and current DOT practice. No comments were received in response to the interim final rule. As a result, this document confirms that the October 2, 2014, interim final rule will not be changed, and its effective date is October 2, 2014.

    DATES:

    Effective June 5, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Claire Barrett, Departmental Chief Privacy Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 or [email protected] or (202) 366-8135.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As the Department received no comments on its interim final rule published on October 2, 2014, we are making no changes to the rule and its effective date is October 2, 2014. For regulatory analyses and notices associated with this action, please see the interim final rule published at 79 FR 59448.

    PART 10—MAINTENANCE OF AND ACCESS TO RECORDS PERTAINING TO INDIVIDUALS

    Accordingly, the interim rule amending 49 CFR part 10 which was published at 79 FR 59448 on October 2, 2014, is adopted as a final rule without change.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19, 2015, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(c). Kathryn B. Thomson, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13760 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 140429387-4971-02] RIN 0648-XD980 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Commercial Blacknose Sharks and Non-Blacknose Small Coastal Sharks in the Atlantic Region AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is closing the fisheries for commercial blacknose sharks and non-blacknose small coastal sharks (SCS) in the Atlantic region. This action is necessary because the commercial landings of Atlantic blacknose sharks for the 2015 fishing season have exceeded 80 percent of the available commercial quota as of May 29, 2015, and the blacknose shark and non-blacknose SCS fisheries are quota-linked under current regulations.

    DATES:

    The commercial fisheries for blacknose sharks and non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic region are closed effective 11:30 p.m. local time June 7, 2015 until the end of the 2015 fishing season on December 31, 2015, or until and if NMFS announces via a notice in the Federal Register that additional quota is available and the season is reopened.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alexis Jackson or Karyl Brewster-Geisz 301-427-8503; fax 301-713-1917.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP), its amendments, and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 635) issued under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

    Under § 635.5(b)(1), dealers must electronically submit reports on sharks that are first received from a vessel on a weekly basis through a NMFS-approved electronic reporting system. Reports must be received by no later than midnight, local time, of the first Tuesday following the end of the reporting week unless the dealer is otherwise notified by NMFS. Under § 635.28(b)(2), the quotas of certain species and/or management groups are linked. The quotas for blacknose sharks and the non-blacknose SCS management group in the Atlantic region are linked (§ 635.28(b)(3)(iii)). Under § 635.28(b)(2), when NMFS calculates that the landings for any species and/or management group of a linked group has reached or is projected to reach 80 percent of the available quota, NMFS will file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register a notice of closure for all of the species and/or management groups in a linked group that will be effective no fewer than 5 days from date of filing. From the effective date and time of the closure until and if NMFS announces, via a notice in the Federal Register, that additional quota is available and the season is reopened, the fisheries for all linked species and/or management groups are closed, even across fishing years.

    On December 2, 2014 (79 FR 71331), NMFS announced that the 2015 commercial Atlantic blacknose shark quota is 17.5 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) (38,638 lb dw) and the non-blacknose SCS quota is 176.1 mt dw (388,222 lb dw).

    Dealer reports recently received through May 29, 2015, indicated that 16.3 mt dw or 93 percent of the available Atlantic blacknose shark quota had been landed and 86.1 mt dw or 49 percent of the available Atlantic non-blacknose SCS quota had been landed. Based on these dealer reports, landings of Atlantic blacknose sharks have already exceeded 80 percent of the quota. Accordingly, NMFS is closing both the commercial blacknose shark fishery and non-blacknose SCS management group in the Atlantic region as of 11:30 p.m. local time June 7, 2015. The only shark species or management groups that remain open in the Atlantic region are research large coastal sharks, sandbar sharks within the shark research fishery, blue shark, and pelagic sharks other than porbeagle or blue shark management groups. On July 1, 2015, in the Atlantic region, the aggregated large coastal shark and hammerhead shark management groups will open.

    At § 635.27(b)(1), the boundary between the Gulf of Mexico region and the Atlantic region is defined as a line beginning on the East Coast of Florida at the mainland at 25°20.4′ N. lat, proceeding due east. Any water and land to the south and west of that boundary is considered, for the purposes of monitoring and setting quotas, to be within the Gulf of Mexico region.

    During the closure, retention of blacknose sharks and non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic region is prohibited for persons fishing aboard vessels issued a commercial shark limited access permit (LAP) under § 635.4. However, persons aboard a commercially permitted vessel that is also properly permitted to operate as a charter vessel or headboat for highly migratory species (HMS) and is engaged in a for-hire trip could fish under the recreational retention limits for sharks and “no sale” provisions (§ 635.22(a) and (c)).

    During this closure, a shark dealer issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may not purchase or receive blacknose sharks or non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic region from a vessel issued a shark LAP, except that a permitted shark dealer or processor may possess blacknose sharks and/or non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic region that were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered prior to the effective date of the closure and were held in storage consistent with § 635.28(b)(5). Similarly, a shark dealer issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4, in accordance with relevant state regulations, may purchase or receive blacknose sharks and/or non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic region if the sharks were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel that fishes only in state waters and that has not been issued a shark LAP, HMS Angling permit, or HMS Charter/Headboat permit pursuant to § 635.4.

    Classification

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that providing prior notice and public comment for this action is impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the fisheries are currently underway and any delay in this action would result in overharvest of the Atlantic blacknose SCS quota and be inconsistent with management requirements and objectives. Similarly, affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action is contrary to the public interest because if the quota is exceeded, the stock may be negatively affected and fishermen ultimately could experience reductions in the available quota and a lack of fishing opportunities in future seasons. For these reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This action is required under § 635.28(b)(2) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 2, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13795 Filed 6-2-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 108 Friday, June 5, 2015 Proposed Rules OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 532 RIN 3206-AN17 Prevailing Rate Systems; Special Wage Schedules for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Employees of the Vicksburg District in Mississippi AGENCY:

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a proposed rule to establish special wage schedules specific to nonsupervisory, leader, and supervisory wage employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) who work at flood control dams (also known as reservoir projects) at the Vicksburg District of the Mississippi Valley Division. The four lakes of the District are currently in two separate wage areas. The Department of Defense (DOD) would be assigned lead agency responsibility for establishing and issuing these special wage schedules. The special wage schedules would be established at the same time and with rates identical to the Memphis, TN, appropriated fund Federal Wage System (FWS) wage schedule.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on or before July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 3206-AN17,” using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Brenda L. Roberts, Deputy Associate Director for Pay and Leave, Employee Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Room 7H31, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415-8200.

    Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Madeline Gonzalez, by telephone at (202) 606-2858 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OPM is issuing a proposed rule to establish special wage schedules for USACE nonsupervisory, leader, and supervisory wage employees who work at flood control dams (also known as reservoir projects) and whose duty station is located at one of the lakes that comprise the Vicksburg District of the Mississippi Valley Division. DOD would be assigned lead agency responsibility for establishing and issuing these special wage schedules. The special wage schedules would be established at the same time and with rates identical to the Memphis, TN, appropriated fund FWS wage schedule.

    The Vicksburg District of the Mississippi Valley Division is comprised of the following four lakes:

    Lakes County Wage area Arkabutla Lake Tate County, MS Memphis, TN. Enid Lake Yalobusha County, MS Northern Mississippi. Grenada Lake Grenada County, MS Northern Mississippi. Sardis Lake Panola County, MS Memphis, TN.

    Grenada and Yalobusha Counties have been defined to the area of application of the Northern Mississippi (previously called Columbus-Aberdeen, MS) wage area since the FWS was established in 1972. In 1978, OPM redefined Tate County from the Columbus-Aberdeen area of application to the Memphis, TN, area of application. In 1996, OPM added Grenada County to the Northern Mississippi survey area. In 2011, OPM redefined Panola County from the Northern Mississippi area of application to the Memphis area of application. Panola County is the location of the District headquarters for USACE employees of the four lake projects.

    At the request of the labor members of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), the Committee has reexamined the definition of Grenada and Yalobusha Counties to see if a change in their definition is warranted. During the review of this subject, the Committee heard local testimony indicating that there is considerable workforce interaction between the four lakes in the Vicksburg District and presents a unique pay situation that is detrimental to the efficient functioning of the lake projects in the District.

    Regulatory Criteria Under 5 CFR 532.211

    OPM considers the following regulatory criteria under 5 CFR 532.211 when defining FWS wage area boundaries:

    (i) Distance, transportation facilities, and geographic features;

    (ii) Commuting patterns; and

    (iii) Similarities in overall population, employment, and the kinds and sizes of private industrial establishments.

    Except for the transportation facilities and geographic features criteria, the analysis of the regulatory criteria for Grenada and Yalobusha Counties favors the Northern Mississippi wage area.

    Based on this analysis, OPM has determined that Grenada and Yalobusha Counties are appropriately defined to the Northern Mississippi wage area.

    Special Wage Schedules

    Because there exists a unique situation in the Vicksburg District to the point that all four lakes may be considered to be managed as one installation, FPRAC recommended by majority vote that DOD establish and issue special wage schedules for USACE employees whose duty station is located in one of the lakes that comprise the Vicksburg District of the Mississippi Valley Division. OPM is proposing to create a special wage schedule practice in this unique circumstance as recommended by FPRAC. The special wage schedules would be established using rates identical to the Memphis appropriated fund FWS wage schedule.

    These special wage schedules would apply on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after 60 days following publication of the final regulations. USACE employees with duty stations in one of the lakes of the Vicksburg District would transfer to the new special wage schedules on a step-by-step basis. No current employee will have his or her pay rate reduced as a result of implementing these new special wage schedules.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they would affect only Federal agencies and employees.

    Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866.

    List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532

    Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Katherine Archuleta, Director.

    Accordingly, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management is proposing to amend 5 CFR part 532 as follows:

    PART 532—PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS 1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.

    2. Subpart B is amended by adding § 532.289 to read as follows:
    § 532.289 Special Wage Schedules for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Employees of the Vicksburg District in Mississippi.

    (a)(1) The Department of Defense will establish special wage schedules for wage employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who work at flood control dams (also known as reservoir projects) and whose duty station is located in one of the lakes that comprise the Vicksburg District of the Mississippi Valley Division.

    (2) These special wage schedules will provide rates of pay for nonsupervisory, leader, and supervisory employees. These special schedule positions will be identified by pay plan codes XR (nonsupervisory), XT (leader), and XU (supervisory).

    (b) The Vicksburg District of the Mississippi Valley Division is comprised of the following four lakes:

    (1) Grenada Lake in Grenada County, MS (2) Enid Lake in Yalobusha County, MS (3) Sardis Lake in Panola County, MS (4) Arkabutla Lake in Tate County, MS

    (c) Special wage schedules shall be established at the same time and with rates identical to the Memphis, TN, appropriated fund wage schedule.

    [FR Doc. 2015-13778 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 925 [Doc. No. AMS-FV-14-0049; FV14-925-3] Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California; Proposed Amendments to Marketing Order AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rulemaking invites comments on three proposed amendments to Marketing Order No. 925 (order), which regulates the handling of table grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California. Two amendments are based on proposals made by the California Desert Grape Administrative Committee (Committee), which is responsible for the local administration of the order. These proposed amendments would increase term lengths for Committee members and alternates from one to four fiscal periods and would allow new members and alternates to agree to accept their nominations prior to selection. The proposals are intended to increase the Committee's effectiveness and bolster industry participation in Committee activities.

    In addition to the Committee's proposals, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) proposes an amendment that would add authority for periodic continuance referenda to allow producers to indicate whether or not there exists continuing support for the order.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by August 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. All comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the internet at the address provided above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Geronimo Quinones, Marketing Specialist, or Michelle P. Sharrow, Rulemaking Branch Chief, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

    Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposal is issued under Marketing Order No. 925, as amended (7 CFR part 925), regulating the handling of table grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” Section 608c(17) of the Act and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900) authorizes amendment of the order through this informal rulemaking action. AMS will consider comments received in response to this rule, and based on all the information available, will determine if order amendment is warranted. If AMS determines amendment of the order is warranted, a subsequent proposed rule and referendum order would be issued and producers would be allowed to vote for or against the proposed order amendments. AMS would then issue a final rule effectuating any amendments approved by producers in the referendum.

    The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

    This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule shall not be deemed to preclude, preempt, or supersede any State program covering table grapes grown in southeastern California.

    The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of entry of the ruling.

    Section 1504 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 110-246) amended section 18c(17) of the Act, which in turn required the addition of supplemental rules of practice to 7 CFR part 900 (73 FR 49307; August 21, 2008). The amendment of section 18c(17) of the Act and additional supplemental rules of practice authorize the use of informal rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553) to amend Federal fruit, vegetable, and nut marketing agreements and orders. USDA may use informal rulemaking to amend marketing orders based on the nature and complexity of the proposed amendments, the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities, and any other relevant matters.

    AMS has considered these factors and has determined that the amendment proposals are not unduly complex and the nature of the proposed amendments is appropriate for utilizing the informal rulemaking process to amend the order. A discussion of the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities is discussed later in the “Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis” section of this rule.

    Two of the proposed amendments were unanimously recommended by the Committee following deliberations at a public meeting held on November 5, 2013. The Committee's proposed amendments would amend the marketing order by: (1) Increasing the length of the term of office for Committee members and alternates from one to four fiscal periods; and (2) allowing new members and alternates to agree to accept their nominations prior to selection.

    In addition to these proposed amendments, AMS proposes to add authority to provide for periodic continuance referenda. AMS has determined that continuance referenda are an effective means to allow the industry to indicate whether or not there exists continuing support for the marketing order. AMS would also consider all other relevant information concerning the operation of the order and the relative benefits and disadvantages to the industry.

    Proposal Number 1—Term of Office

    Section 925.21 of the order provides that terms of office for Committee members and alternates is one fiscal period. The nomination and selection process for the 12 members and 12 alternates is conducted annually and may take a number of months to complete.

    This proposal would amend § 925.21 by increasing the length of the term of office for Committee members and alternates from one to four fiscal periods. The proposed change would provide more time for new members and alternates to learn the details of the Committee's operations and business during their tenure. In addition, because the industry is relatively small with a limited number of qualified candidates available to fill positions, longer terms would eliminate the annual turnover of the Committee and the perennial need for new members and alternates. If this amendment is adopted, members and alternate members would be selected for a four-year term of office beginning with the first term after the amendments become effective.

    For the reasons stated above, it is proposed that § 925.21 be modified to increase the length of the term of office for Committee members and alternates from one to four fiscal periods.

    Proposal Number 2—Qualification and Acceptance

    This proposal would modify § 925.25 to allow new members and alternates to agree to accept their nominations prior to selection for the Committee by the Secretary.

    Currently, Committee members and alternates are nominated by their peers to serve and are then selected by the Secretary. After the selections are made, Committee members and alternates are required to formally accept the appointment by signing and submitting an acceptance letter indicating they are willing to serve. The Committee believes this final step in the selection process is redundant and not efficient. The order provision would be revised to specify that before a person is selected as a member or alternate member of the Committee, that person must complete a questionnaire outlining their qualifications. The proposal would eliminate the requirement to complete and submit a separate acceptance letter after being nominated. Because the nominee qualifications questionnaire already includes a statement indicating the person is willing to serve on the Committee, if selected by the Secretary, AMS modified the proposed regulatory text originally submitted by the Committee.

    For the reasons stated above, it is proposed that § 925.25 be revised to remove the requirement to file a written acceptance with the Secretary after being notified of selection.

    Proposal Number 3—Continuance Referenda

    AMS proposes an amendment to § 925.63, Termination, to require that continuance referenda be conducted every six years to gauge industry support for the order. Currently, there is no provision in the marketing order that requires periodic continuance referenda. Continuance referenda provide an industry with a means to measure grower support for the marketing order program. Since marketing orders benefit growers, it follows that they should be afforded the opportunity to express whether they support the programs on a periodic basis. Under this proposal, the Department would consider termination of the order if less than two-thirds of the producers voting in the referendum or producers of less than two-thirds of the volume of table grapes represented in the referendum favor continuance. In evaluating the merits of continuance versus termination, USDA would not only consider the results of the referendum. The Department would also consider all other relevant information concerning the operation of the order and its relative benefits and disadvantages in order to determine whether continued operation of the order would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

    Therefore, it is recommended that § 925.63—Termination, be amended by redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and adding a new paragraph (c) to provide that a continuance referendum shall be conducted six years after the amendment becomes effective and every six years thereafter. The new paragraph (c) of § 925.63 should further specify that the Department may terminate the order if continuance is not favored by two-thirds of the growers participating in the referendum, or voters representing two-thirds of the production volume represented in the referendum.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

    The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

    There are approximately 15 handlers of southeastern California table grapes who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 41 grape producers in the production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

    Ten of the 15 handlers subject to regulation have annual grape sales of less than $7,000,000 according to USDA Market News Service and Committee data. Based on information from the Committee and USDA's Market News Service, it is estimated that at least 10 of the 41 producers have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Thus, it may be concluded that a majority of grape handlers regulated under the order and about 10 of the producers could be classified as small entities under SBA definitions.

    The amendments proposed by the Committee would provide authority to increase the term length for members and alternates from one to four fiscal periods under the Federal marketing order for California table grapes. They also would allow new members and alternates of the Committee to agree to accept their nominations before the selection process begins. An amendment proposed by AMS would provide for continuance referenda every six years.

    The Committee's proposed amendments were unanimously recommended at a public meeting on November 5, 2013. If these proposals are approved in referendum, there would be no direct financial effects on producers or handlers. However, eliminating the need to complete the election process every year would save considerable amounts of time and reduce expenses for the industry and the Committee. In addition, eliminating the acceptance letter would reduce paperwork and the time spent completing it.

    The Committee believes these changes represent the needs of the Committee and industry. No economic impact is expected if the amendments are approved because they would not establish any regulatory requirements on handlers, nor do they contain any assessment or funding implications. There would be no change in financial costs, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements if either of these proposals is approved.

    AMS' proposal to add a provision for continuance referenda is expected to afford producers the opportunity to indicate continuing support for the order and its programs. Support for the program is expected to benefit all producers and handlers by ensuring that the program continues to meet the industry's needs.

    Alternatives to these proposals, including making no changes at this time, were considered. However, the Committee believes it would be beneficial to streamline the nomination and selection process to reduce the costs required for completing the process annually and to provide new members and alternates with more time to learn the details of the Committee's operations and business during their tenure.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the termination of the Letter of Acceptance was previously submitted to and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). As a result, the current number of hours associated with OMB No. 0581-0189, Generic Fruit Crops, would remain the same: 7,786.71 hours.

    As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

    AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

    The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California table grape production area. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the November 5, 2013, meeting was public, and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express their views on these proposals.

    Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposed amendments to the order, including comments on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

    Following analysis of any comments received on the amendments proposed in this rule, AMS will evaluate all available information and determine whether to proceed. If appropriate, a proposed rule and referendum order would be issued, and producers would be provided the opportunity to vote for or against the proposed amendments. Information about the referendum, including dates and voter eligibility requirements, would be published in a future issue of the Federal Register. A final rule would then be issued to effectuate any amendments favored by producers participating in the referendum.

    A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at his previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    General Findings

    The findings hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations which were previously made in connection with the issuance of the marketing order; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.

    1. The marketing order as hereby proposed to be amended and all of the terms and conditions thereof, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;

    2. The marketing order as hereby proposed to be amended regulates the handling of table grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California in the same manner as, and is applicable only to, persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing order;

    3. The marketing order as hereby proposed to be amended is limited in application to the smallest regional production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;

    4. The marketing order as hereby proposed to be amended prescribes, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of table grapes produced or packed in the production area; and

    5. All handling of table grapes produced or packed in the production area as defined in the marketing order is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.

    A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to these proposals. Any comments received on the amendments proposed in this rule will be analyzed, and if AMS determines to proceed based on all the information presented, a producer referendum would be conducted to determine producer support for the proposed amendments. If appropriate, a final rule would then be issued to effectuate the amendments favored by producers participating in the referendum.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 925

    Grapes, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 925 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 925—GRAPES GROWN IN A DESIGNATED AREA OF SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 925 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    2. Revise the first sentence of 925.21 to read as follows:
    § 925.21 Term of office.

    The term of office of the members and alternates shall be four fiscal periods.* * *

    3. Revise 925.25 to read as follows:
    § 925.25 Qualification and acceptance.

    Any person selected as a member or alternate member of the Committee shall, prior to such selection, qualify by filing a qualifications questionnaire advising the Secretary that he or she agrees to serve in the position for which nominated.

    4. Amend 925.63 by redesignating paragraph (c) as (d) and adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 925.63 Termination.

    (c) Within six years of the effective date of this part the Secretary shall conduct a referendum to ascertain whether continuance of this part is favored by producers. Subsequent referenda to ascertain continuance shall be conducted every six years thereafter. The Secretary may terminate the provisions of this part at the end of any fiscal period in which the Secretary has found that continuance of this part is not favored by a two thirds majority of voting producers, or a two thirds majority of volume represented thereby, who, during a representative period determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in the production for market of table grapes in the production area. Such termination shall be announced on or before the end of the production year.

    Dated: June 1, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13647 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Chapter I [Docket ID FFIEC-2014-0001] FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Chapter II [Docket No. R-1510] FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Chapter III Regulatory Publication and Review Under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 AGENCY:

    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”).

    ACTION:

    Notice of regulatory review; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The OCC, Board, and FDIC (each an “Agency”; together “we” or “Agencies”) are conducting a review of the regulations we have issued in order to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions, as required by the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA). EGRPRA requires the Agencies to organize the regulations into categories and publish groups of categories for comment. In this notice, the Agencies are seeking public comment on regulations in the following categories: Consumer Protection; Directors, Officers and Employees; and Money Laundering.

    In addition, in order to be as inclusive as possible, the Agencies are expanding the scope of the EGRPRA review to include newly issued rules. The Agencies will solicit comment on all rules finalized by the Agencies before the publication of the last EGRPRA notice in the series, which we intend to publish by the end of this year. We have included with today's notice a chart that lists additional rules in their respective categories, to which we will add any other rules issued prior to the final EGRPRA notice. The public also may comment on these rules at any time during an open comment period.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by no later than September 3, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Any interested individual may submit comments through the EGRPRA Web site during open comment periods at: http://egrpra.ffiec.gov/submit-comment/submit-comment-index.html. On this site, click “Submit a Comment” and follow the instructions. Alternatively, comments also may be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal “Regulations.gov” at: http://www.regulations.gov. Enter “Docket ID FFIEC-2014-0001” in the Search Box, click “Search,” and click “Comment Now.” Those who wish to submit their comments by an alternate means may do so as indicated by each Agency below.

    OCC:

    The OCC encourages commenters to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, Regulations.gov, in accordance with the previous paragraph. Alternatively, comments may be emailed to [email protected] or sent by mail to Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Mail Stop 9W-11, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. Comments also may be faxed to (571) 465-4326 or hand delivered or sent by courier to 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For comments submitted by any means other than Regulations.gov, you must include “OCC” as the Agency name and “Docket ID FFIEC-2014-0001” in your comment.

    In general, the OCC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them without change on Regulations.gov. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, as well as any business or personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, or phone number, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Therefore, please do not include any information with your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    You may inspect and photocopy in person all comments received by the OCC at 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect or photocopy comments. You may make an appointment by calling (202) 649-6700. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to a security screening.

    Board:

    The Board encourages commenters to submit comments regarding the Board's regulations by any of the following methods:

    • Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Agency Web site.

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal, in accordance with the directions above.

    • Email: [email protected] Include “EGRPRA” and Docket No. R-1510 in the subject line of the message.

    • FAX: (202) 452-3819.

    • Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    In general, the Board will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them without change on the Board's public Web site, www.federalreserve.gov; Regulations.gov; and http://egrpra.ffiec.gov. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, as well as any business or personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, or phone number, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Therefore, please do not enclose any information with your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    You may inspect and photocopy in person all comments received by the Board in Room 3515, 1801 K Street NW. (between 18th and 19th Street NW.), Washington, DC 20006, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. For security reasons, the Board requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may make an appointment by calling (202) 452-3000. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to a security screening.

    FDIC:

    The FDIC encourages commenters to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, “Regulations.gov,” in accordance with the directions above. Alternatively, you may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    • Agency Web site: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal. Follow instructions for submitting comments on the Agency Web site.

    • Email: [email protected] Include “EGRPRA” in the subject line of the message.

    • Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    • Hand Delivery/Courier: Guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. (EDT).

    The FDIC will post all comments received to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal without change, including any personal information provided. Comments may be inspected and photocopied in the FDIC Public Information Center, 3501 North Fairfax Drive, Room E-1002, Arlington, VA 22226, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. (EDT) on business days. Paper copies of public comments may be ordered from the Public Information Center by calling (877) 275-3342.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    OCC: Karen McSweeney, Counsel (202) 649-6295; Heidi M. Thomas, Special Counsel, (202) 649-5490; Rima Kundnani, Attorney, (202) 649-5545; for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY (202) 649-5597.

    Board: Claudia Von Pervieux, Counsel (202) 452-2552; Matthew Bornfreund, Attorney (202) 452-3818; for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY (202) 263-4869.

    FDIC: Ruth R. Amberg, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 898-3736; Ann Taylor, Supervisory Counsel (202) 898-3573; for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY 1-800-925-4618.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    Section 2222 of EGRPRA 1 requires that, not less frequently than once every 10 years, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC),2 along with the Agencies, 3 conduct a review of their regulations to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary requirements imposed on insured depository institutions.4 The EGRPRA regulatory review provides an opportunity for the public and the Agencies to look at groups of related regulations and to identify opportunities for burden reduction. For example, the EGRPRA review may facilitate the identification of statutes and regulations that share similar goals or complementary methods where one or more Agencies could eliminate overlapping requirements. Alternatively, commenters may identify regulations or statutes that impose requirements that are no longer consistent with the way that business is conducted and that the Agencies should eliminate or revise.

    1 Public Law 104-208 (1996), codified at 12 U.S.C. 3311.

    2 The FFIEC is an interagency body empowered to prescribe uniform principles, standards, and report forms for the Federal examination of financial institutions and to make recommendations to promote uniformity in the supervision of financial institutions. The FFIEC does not issue regulations that impose burden on financial institutions and, therefore, we have not separately captioned the FFIEC in this notice.

    3 The FFIEC is comprised of the OCC, Board, FDIC, National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and State Liaison Committee. Of these, only the OCC, Board, and FDIC are statutorily required to undertake the EGRPRA review. The NCUA elected to participate in the first EGRPRA review 10 years ago, and the NCUA Board again has elected to participate in this review process. Consistent with its approach during the first EGRPRA review, NCUA will separately issue notices and requests for comment on its rules. The CFPB is required to review its significant rules and publish a report of its review no later than five years after they take effect. See 12 U.S.C. 5512(d). This process is separate from the EGRPRA process.

    4 Insured depository institutions also are subject to regulations that are not required to be reviewed under the EGRPRA process. Examples include rules for which rulemaking authority has transferred to the CFPB and anti-money laundering regulations issued by the Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, among others. If, during the EGRPRA review, the Agencies receive a comment about a regulation that is not subject to the EGRPRA review, we will forward that comment to the appropriate agency.

    In addition to providing an opportunity to consider burden reduction generally, the EGRPRA review also provides the Agencies and the public with an opportunity to consider burden reduction on community banks and other small, insured depository institutions or holding companies. We are keenly aware of the role that these institutions play in providing consumers and businesses across the nation with essential financial services and access to credit, and we are concerned about the impact of regulatory burden on these smaller institutions. We understand that when an Agency issues a new regulation or amends a current regulation, smaller institutions may have to devote considerable resources to determine if and how the regulation will affect them. Through the public comment process, the EGRPRA review can help the Agencies identify and target regulatory changes to reduce unnecessary burden on these smaller institutions.

    Burden reduction must, however, be consistent with the Agencies' statutory mandates, many of which require the issuance of regulations. These mandates include ensuring the safety and soundness of insured depository institutions, their affiliates, and the financial system as a whole. EGRPRA recognizes that effective burden reduction may require legislative change. Accordingly, as part of this review, we specifically ask the public to comment on the relationships among burden reduction, regulatory requirements, and statutory mandates.

    In addition, we note that the Agencies consider potential regulatory burden each time we propose, adopt, or amend a rule. For example, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Agencies assess each rulemaking with respect to the burdens the rule might impose. Furthermore, we invite the public to comment on every rule we propose, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

    II. The EGRPRA Review Process

    Taken together for purposes of EGRPRA, the Agencies' regulations covering insured depository institutions encompass more than 100 subjects.5 Consistent with the EGRPRA statute, the Agencies grouped these regulations into the following 12 regulatory categories: Applications and Reporting; Banking Operations; Capital; Community Reinvestment Act; Consumer Protection; 6 Directors, Officers and Employees; International Operations; Money Laundering; Powers and Activities; Rules of Procedure; Safety and Soundness; and Securities. To determine these categories, we divided the regulations by type and sought to have no category be too large or broad.

    5 Consistent with EGRPRA's focus on reducing burden on insured depository institutions, the Agencies have not included their internal, organizational, or operational regulations in this review.

    6 As we have previously noted, the Agencies are seeking comment only on those consumer protection regulations for which we retain rulemaking authority for insured depository institutions and regulated holding companies following passage of section 1061 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203 (2010) (Dodd-Frank Act), codified at 12 U.S.C. 5581(b).

    To carry out the EGRPRA review, the Agencies will publish four Federal Register notices, each addressing one or more categories of rules. Each Federal Register notice will have a 90-day comment period. On June 4, 2014, the Agencies published the first such notice, seeking comment on three categories of rules: Applications and Reporting, Powers and Activities, and International Operations.7 On February 13, 2015, the Agencies published the second notice, seeking comment on three additional categories of rules: Banking Operations, Capital, and the Community Reinvestment Act.8 Today, we are publishing the third notice, addressing the categories of Consumer Protection; Directors, Officers and Employees; and Money Laundering. We invite the public to identify outdated, otherwise unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions and their holding companies in these three categories. Chart A in Section IV lists the Agencies' rules that fall within these categories.

    7 79 FR 32172 (First Notice).

    8 80 FR 7980 (Second Notice).

    After comments have been received, the Agencies will review the comments and decide whether further action is appropriate with respect to the regulations. The Agencies will make this decision jointly in the case of rules that we have issued on an interagency basis. Similarly, we will undertake any rulemaking to amend or repeal those rules on an interagency basis. For rules issued by an Agency, the issuing Agency will review the comments received and independently determine whether amendments to or repeal of its rules are appropriate. If so, that Agency will initiate a rulemaking to effect such change. In all cases, the Agencies will provide the public with an opportunity to comment on any proposed amendment to or repeal of a regulation, as required by the APA.

    Further, as part of the EGRPRA review, the Agencies are holding a series of outreach meetings to provide an opportunity for bankers, consumer and community groups, and other interested persons to present their views directly to senior management and staff of the Agencies on any of the categories of regulations in the EGRPRA review. More information about the outreach meetings can be found on the Agencies' EGRPRA Web site, http://egrpra.ffiec.gov.

    Finally, EGRPRA also requires the FFIEC or the Agencies to publish in the Federal Register a summary of the comments received, identifying significant issues raised and commenting on these issues. It also directs the Agencies to eliminate unnecessary regulations to the extent that such action is appropriate. The statute additionally requires the FFIEC to submit to Congress a report that summarizes any significant issues raised in the public comments and the relative merits of such issues. The report also must include an analysis of whether the Agencies are able to address the regulatory burdens associated with such issues or whether these burdens must be addressed by legislative action.

    III. The Agencies' Expansion of the Scope of the EGRPRA Review

    To be as inclusive as possible, the Agencies are expanding the scope of the EGRPRA review to include rules that the Agencies have recently finalized (Newly Listed Rules), including those issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act and the recent domestic capital and liquidity rules. We will seek specific comment on these Newly Listed Rules in the fourth EGRPRA Federal Register notice, which we plan to issue by the end of this year. (There are no Newly Listed Rules in the three categories covered by this notice.) As noted below, the Agencies will also accept comment at any time on any of our regulations during an open comment period as part of the EGRPRA process.

    The Agencies have identified the Newly Listed Rules and placed them into the 12 categories established for this review. Chart B in Section IV contains these Newly Listed Rules. Prior to the publication of the fourth and final notice of the EGRPRA review, the Agencies will add to the Newly Listed Rules any additional rules finalized by that time. Furthermore, it has been the practice of the Agencies to accept comments on any of the Agencies' rules during the EGRPRA review. We will continue this practice and accept comments at any time during an open comment period on any of the rules of the Agencies, including those contained in Charts A and B, as well as those rules published in the prior Federal Register notices.

    IV. Request for Burden Reduction Comments on Regulations in the Consumer Protection; Directors, Officers and Employees; and Money Laundering Categories

    As stated previously in this notice, the Agencies are asking the public to comment on regulations in the Consumer Protection; Directors, Officers and Employees; and Money Laundering categories to identify outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements imposed on insured depository institutions and their regulated holding companies. Where possible, we ask commenters to cite specific regulatory language or provisions. We also welcome suggested alternative provisions or language in support of a comment, where appropriate. Where implementation of a suggestion would require modification of a statute, we ask the commenter to identify the statute and the needed change, where possible.

    Specific issues for commenters to consider. The Agencies specifically invite comment on the following issues as they pertain to the Agencies' Consumer Protection; Directors, Officers and Employees; and Money Laundering rules addressed in this notice.

    Need for statutory change. (1) Do any statutory requirements underlying the rules in these categories impose outdated or otherwise unnecessary regulatory requirements? (2) If so, please identify the statutes and indicate how they should be amended.

    Need and purpose of the regulations. (1) Have there been changes in the financial services industry, consumer behavior, or other circumstances that cause any regulations in these categories to be outdated or otherwise unnecessary? (2) If so, please identify and indicate how they should be amended. (3) Do any of these regulations impose burdens not required by their underlying statutes? (4) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

    Overarching approaches/flexibility. (1) With respect to the regulations in these categories, could an Agency use a different approach to lessen the burden imposed by the regulations and achieve statutory intent? (2) Do any of these rules impose unnecessarily inflexible requirements? (3) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

    Effect on competition. (1) Do any of the regulations or underlying statutes create competitive disadvantages for one part of the financial services industry compared to another or for one type of insured depository institution compared to another? (2) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

    Reporting, recordkeeping and disclosure requirements. (1) Do any of the regulations or underlying statutes in these categories impose outdated or otherwise unnecessary reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements on insured depository institutions or their holding companies? (2) Could a financial institution fulfill any of these requirements electronically (if it is not already permitted to do so) and experience burden reduction? (3) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

    Unique characteristics of a type of institution. (1) Do any of the regulations or underlying statutes in these categories impose requirements that are unwarranted by the unique characteristics of a particular type of insured depository institution or holding company? (2) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

    Clarity. (1) Are the regulations in these categories clear and easy to understand? (2) Are there specific regulations for which clarification is needed? (3) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

    Burden on community banks and other smaller, insured depository institutions. (1) Are there regulations or underlying statutes in these categories that impose outdated or otherwise unnecessary requirements on a substantial number of community banks or other smaller, insured depository institutions or holding companies? (2) Have the Agencies issued regulations pursuant to a common statute that, as applied by the Agencies, create redundancies or impose inconsistent requirements? (3) Should any of these regulations be amended or repealed in order to minimize this impact? (4) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

    Scope of rules. (1) Is the scope of each rule in these categories consistent with the intent of the underlying statute(s)? (2) Could we amend the scope of a rule to clarify its applicability or reduce burden, while remaining faithful to statutory intent? (3) If so, please identify the regulations and indicate how they should be amended.

    Subject National banks State member banks State non-member banks Federal savings
  • associations
  • State savings
  • associations
  • BHCs & FHCs
  • SLHCs
  • 7. Consumer Protection9 Interagency Regulations Consumer Protection in Sales of Insurance 12 CFR Part 14 12 CFR Part 208, Subpart H [Reg. H] 12 CFR Part 343 12 CFR Part 14 12 CFR Part 390, Subpart I Fair Housing 12 CFR Part 27 12 CFR Part 338 12 CFR Part 128 (including other non-discrimination requirements) 12 CFR Part 390, Subpart G Loans in Identified Flood Hazard Areas 12 CFR Part 22 12 CFR 208.25 [Reg. H] (See also proposal to amend Part 208 at 78 FR 65108 (Oct. 30, 2013)) 12 CFR Part 339 (See also proposal to amend Part 339 at 78 FR 65108 (Oct. 30, 2013)). 12 CFR Part 172 12 CFR Part 391, Subpart D (See also proposal to apply proposed amendments to Part 339 to state savings associations at 78 FR 65108 (Oct. 30, 2013)) Prohibition Against Use of Interstate Branches Primarily for Deposit Production 12 CFR Part 25, Subpart E 12 CFR 208.7 [Reg. H] 12 CFR Part 369 Safeguarding Customer Information 12 CFR Part 30, Appx. B 12 CFR Part 208, Appx. D-2 [Reg. H] 12 CFR Part 364, Appx. B 12 CFR Part 30, Appx. B 12 CFR 391.14, Appx. B 12 CFR Part 225, Appx. F [Reg. Y]. Fair Credit Reporting Act: Duties of Users of Consumer Reports Regarding Address Discrepancies Records Disposal 12 CFR Part 41, Subpart I 12 CFR Part 222, Subpart I [Reg. V] 12 CFR Part 334, Subpart I 12 CFR Part 41, Subpart I 12 CFR Part 391, Subpart C Fair Credit Reporting Act: Consumer Information and Identity Theft Red Flags 12 CFR Part 41, Subpart J 12 CFR Part 222, Subpart J [Reg. V] 12 CFR Part 334, Subpart J 12 CFR Part 41, Subpart J 12 CFR Part 391, Subpart C OCC Regulations Federal Savings Association Advertising 12 CFR 163.27 Federal Savings Association Tying Restriction Exception 12 CFR 163.36 FDIC Regulations State Savings Association Tying Restriction Exception 12 CFR 390.335 Advertisement of Membership 12 CFR Part 328 12 CFR Part 328 12 CFR Part 328 12 CFR Part 328 12 CFR Part 328 (See also 12 CFR 390.333) Deposit Insurance Coverage 12 CFR Part 330 12 CFR Part 330 12 CFR Part 330 12 CFR Part 330 12 CFR Part 330 (See also 12 CFR 390.231) Certification of Assumption of Deposits and Notification of Changes of Insured Status 12 CFR Part 307 12 CFR Part 307 12 CFR Part 307 12 CFR Part 307 12 CFR Part 307 (See also 12 CFR 390.332) 8. Directors, Officers and Employees Interagency Regulations Disclosure of Financial Information 12 CFR Part 18 12 CFR Part 350 Golden Parachute and Indemnification Programs 12 CFR Part 359 12 CFR Part 359 12 CFR Part 359 12 CFR Part 359 (See also 12 CFR 145.121) 12 CFR Part 359 12 CFR Part 359.
  • 12 CFR Part 359.
  • Limits on Extensions of Credit to Executive Officers, Directors and Principal Shareholders; Related Disclosure Requirements 12 CFR Part 31 12 CFR Part 215 [Reg. O] 12 CFR 337.3; 12 CFR Part 349 12 CFR 163.43 12 CFR 390.338 Management Official Interlocks 12 CFR Part 26 12 CFR Part 212 [Reg. L] 12 CFR Part 348 12 CFR Part 26 12 CFR Part 390, Subpart V 12 CFR Part 212 [Reg. L].
  • 12 CFR Part 238, Subpart J [Reg. LL].
  • OCC Regulations National Bank Activities and Operations—Corporate Practices 12 CFR Part 7, Subpart B Federal Savings Association Board of Directors Composition 12 CFR 163.33 Federal Savings Association Bond Coverage 12 CFR 163.190-.191 Federal Savings Association Employment Contracts, Compensation, Pension Plans 12 CFR 163.39; 12 CFR 163.47; 12 CFR 163.161 Federal Savings Association Restrictions on Transactions with Officers, Directors, and Others 12 CFR 160.130; 12 CFR 163.200-.201 FDIC Regulations State Savings Association Directors, Officers, and Employees 12 CFR 390.334 State Savings Association Bond Coverage 12 CFR 390.356-.357 State Savings Association Employment Contracts, Compensation, Pension Plans 12 CFR 390.336; 12 CFR 390.332; 12 CFR 390.339 State Savings Association Restrictions on Transactions with Officers, Directors, and Others 12 CFR 390.269 9. Money Laundering Interagency Regulations Bank Secrecy Act Compliance 12 CFR Part 21, Subpart C 12 CFR 208.63 [Reg. H] 12 CFR Part 326, Subpart B 12 CFR 21, Subpart C 12 CFR 390.354 Reports of Crimes or Suspected Crimes 12 CFR Part 21, Subpart B 12 CFR 208.62-.63 [Reg. H] 12 CFR Part 353 12 CFR 163.180(d) 12 CFR 390.355 12 CFR 225.4(f) [Reg. Y]. 1. Applications and Reporting Board Regulations Concentration Limits 12 CFR Part 251 [Reg. XX] 12 CFR Part 251 [Reg. XX] 12 CFR Part 251 [Reg. XX] 12 CFR Part 251 [Reg. XX] 12 CFR Part 251 [Reg. XX] 12 CFR Part 251 [Reg. XX].
  • 12 CFR Part 251 [Reg. XX].
  • 2. Powers and Activities Interagency Regulations Proprietary Trading and Relationships with Covered Funds 12 CFR Part 44 12 CFR Part 248 [Reg. VV] 12 CFR Part 351 12 CFR Part 44 12 CFR Part 351 12 CFR Part 248 [Reg. VV].
  • 12 CFR Part 248 [Reg. VV].
  • Retail Foreign Exchange Transactions 12 CFR Part 48 12 CFR Part 240 [Reg. NN] 12 CFR Part 349 12 CFR Part 48 12 CFR Part 349 12 CFR Part 240 [Reg. NN]. Board Regulations Proprietary Trading and Relationships with Covered Funds 12 CFR Part 225, Subpart K [Reg. Y].
  • 12 CFR Part 225, Subpart K [Reg. Y].
  • 3. International Operations Board Regulations Foreign Banking Organizations: Stress Tests, Risk Committee, and Enhanced Prudential Standards 12 CFR Part 252 Subparts L-O [Reg. YY]. Swaps Entities 12 CFR Part 237 [Reg. KK] 12 CFR Part 237 [Reg. KK]. 4. Banking Operations Board Regulations Assessment of Fees 12 CFR Part 246 [Reg. TT].
  • 12 CFR Part 246 [Reg. TT].
  • Debit Card Interchange Fees 12 CFR Part 235 [Reg. II] 12 CFR Part 235 [Reg. II] 12 CFR Part 235 [Reg. II] 12 CFR Part 235 [Reg. II] 12 CFR Part 235 [Reg. II] 5. Capital Interagency Regulations Capital Adequacy: General Ratio and Buffers Definition of Capital Transition 12 CFR Part 3, Subparts A-C, G-J 12 CFR Part 217, Subparts A-C, G [Reg. Q] 12 CFR Part 324, Subparts A-C, G
  • [Previously found in 12 CFR Part 325]
  • 12 CFR Part 3, Subparts A-C, G-J 12 CFR Part 324, Subparts A-C, G
  • [Previously found in 12 CFR Part 390, Subpart Z]
  • 12 CFR Part 217, Subparts A-C, G [Reg. Q].
  • 12 CFR Part 217, Subparts A-C, G [Reg. Q].
  • Capital Adequacy: Risk-Weighted Assets—Standardized Approach 12 CFR Part 3, Subpart D 12 CFR Part 217, Subpart D [Reg. Q] 12 CFR Part 324, Subpart D
  • [Previously found in 12 CFR Part 325 Appx. A]
  • 12 CFR Part 3, Subpart D 12 CFR Part 324, Subpart D
  • [Previously found in 12 CFR Part 390, Subpart Z, Appx. A]
  • 12 CFR Part 217, Subpart D [Reg. Q].
  • 12 CFR Part 217, Subpart D [Reg. Q].
  • Capital Adequacy: Risk-Weighted Assets—Advanced Measurement Approaches 12 CFR Part 3, Subpart E 12 CFR Part 217, Subpart E [Reg. Q] 12 CFR Part 324, Subpart E
  • [Previously found in 12 CFR Part 325 Appx. D]
  • 12 CFR Part 3, Subpart E 12 CFR Part 324, Subpart E
  • [Previously found in 12 CFR Part 390, Subpart Z, Appx. A]
  • 12 CFR Part 217, Subpart E [Reg. Q].
  • 12 CFR Part 217, Subpart E [Reg. Q].
  • Capital Adequacy: Risk-Weighted Assets—Market Risk 12 CFR Part 3, Subpart F 12 CFR Part 217, Subpart F [Reg. Q] 12 CFR Part 324, Subpart F
  • [Previously found in 12 CFR Part 325 Appx. C]
  • 12 CFR Part 3, Subpart F 12 CFR Part 324, Subpart F
  • [Previously found in 12 CFR Part 390, Subpart Z, Appx. A]
  • 12 CFR Part 217, Subpart F [Reg. Q].
  • 12 CFR Part 217, Subpart F [Reg. Q].
  • Capital Adequacy Guidelines 12 CFR Part 3, Appx. A and B 12 CFR Part 208, Appx. A, B, and E [Reg. H] 12 CFR Part 324 [Previously found in 12 CFR Part 325 Appx. A-D] 12 CFR Part 3, Appx. A and B 12 CFR Part 324 [Previously found in 12 CFR Part 390, Subpart Z, Appx. A] 12 CFR Part 225, Appx. A, B, D, and E [Reg. Y]. Prompt Corrective Action 12 CFR Part 6 12 CFR Part 208, Subpart D [Reg. H]; 12 CFR Part 263, Subpart H 12 CFR Part 325, Subpart B 12 CFR Part 6; 12 CFR 165.8;12 CFR 165.9 12 CFR Part 390, Subpart Y 12 CFR Part 208, Subpart D [Reg. H]; 12 CFR Part 263, Subpart H. OCC Regulations Annual Stress Tests 12 CFR Part 46 12 CFR Part 46 Board Regulations Capital Planning 12 CFR Part l225.8 [Reg. Y]. Stress Tests—U.S. Organizations Company Run and Supervisory 12 CFR Part 252, Subparts B, E, and F [Reg. YY] 12 CFR Part 252, Subparts B, E, and F [Reg. YY].
  • 12 CFR Part 252, Subpart B [Reg. YY].
  • FDIC Regulations Annual Stress Tests 12 CFR Part 325, Subpart C 12 CFR Part 325, Subpart C 6. Community Reinvestment Act All rules under this category were included in the charts published in the First Notice. 7. Consumer Protection All rules under this category were included in the charts published in the First Notice. 8. Directors, Officers, and Employees All rules under this category were included in the charts published in the First Notice. 9. Money Laundering All rules under this category were included in the charts published in the First Notice. 10. Rules of Procedure FDIC Regulations Orderly Liquidation Authority 12 CFR Part 380.
  • 12 CFR Part 380.
  • 11. Safety and Soundness Interagency Regulations Appraisals: Higher-priced Mortgages 12 CFR Part 34, Subpart G 12 CFR 226.43;12 CFR Part 226, Appx. N and O, and Supp. I [Reg. Z] 12 CFR Part 1026 [Reg. Z] 12 CFR Part 34, Subpart G 12 CFR 226.43; 12 CFR Part 226, Appx. N and O, and Supp. I [Reg. Z].
  • 12 CFR 226.43; 12 CFR Part 226, Appx. N and O, and Supp. I [Reg. Z].
  • Credit Risk Retention 12 CFR Part 43 12 CFR Part 244 [Reg. RR] 12 CFR Part 373 12 CFR Part 43 12 CFR Part 373 12 CFR Part 244 [Reg. RR].
  • 12 CFR Part 244 [Reg. RR].
  • Liquidity Risk 12 CFR Part 50 12 CFR Part 249 [Reg. WW] 12 CFR Part 329 12 CFR Part 50 12 CFR Part 329 12 CFR Part 249[Reg. WW].
  • 12 CFR Part 249 [Reg. WW].
  • Resolution Plans 12 CFR Part 381; 12 CFR Part 243 [Reg. QQ]. FDIC Regulations Resolution Plans 12 CFR Part 360.10 12 CFR Part 360.10 12 CFR Part 360.10 12 CFR Part 360.10 12 CFR Part 360.10 OCC Regulations Heightened Expectations Guidelines 12 CFR Part 30, Appx. D 12 CFR Part 30, Appx. D Board Regulations Appraisals: Appraiser Independence 12 CFR 226.42;12 CFR Part 226, Supp. I [Reg. Z] 12 CFR Part 1026 [Reg. Z] 12 CFR 226.42; 12 CFR Part 226, Supp. I [Reg. Z].
  • 12 CFR 226.42; 12 CFR Part 226, Supp. I [Reg. Z].
  • Definitions related to the Financial Stability Oversight Council 12 CFR Part 242 [Reg. PP]. Enhanced Prudential Standards Risk Committee Requirement (for certain BHCs) Standards for BHCs with consolidated assets $50 billion or more 12 CFR Part 252, Subparts B and C [Reg. YY]. Financial Market Utilities 12 CFR Part 234 [Reg. HH] Securities Holding Companies 12 CFR Part 241 [Reg. OO]. 12. Securities All rules under this category were included in the charts published in the First Notice.

    9 Regulations for which rulemaking authority has transferred to the CFPB are not included in this Consumer Protection category. As described in the Supplementary Information section of this notice, the CFPB is required to review its significant rules and publish a report of its review no later than five years after they take effect, in a process separate from the EGRPRA process.

    Dated: May 27, 2015. Thomas J. Curry, Comptroller of the Currency. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 29, 2015. Michael Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board. Dated: May 29, 2015.

    By order of the Board of Directors.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13749 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1427; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-203-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 96-18-06 for certain Airbus Model A320-211 and -231 airplanes. AD 96-18-06 currently requires visual inspections to detect cracks of the pressurized floor fittings at frame (FR) 36, and renewal of the zone protective finish or replacement of fittings with new fittings if necessary. Since we issued AD 96-18-06, an extended service goal analysis by the manufacturer revealed that the compliance times and repetitive inspection intervals should be reduced to meet the design service goal. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 96-18-06, with reduced compliance times and repetitive inspection intervals. This proposed AD would also add Model A320-212 airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the pressurized floor fittings at FR 36, which could result in failure of a floor fitting and subsequent depressurization of the fuselage.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1427; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-1427; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-203-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    On August 23, 1996, we issued AD 96-18-06, Amendment 39-9730 (61 FR 46703, September 5, 1996). AD 96-18-06 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A320-211 and -231 airplanes.

    Since we issued AD 96-18-06, Amendment 39-9730 (61 FR 46703, September 5, 1996), an extended service goal analysis by the manufacturer revealed that the compliance times and repetitive inspection intervals must be reduced to meet the design service goal.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agency for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0226, dated September 23, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During center fuselage certification full scale fatigue test, damage was found on the pressurized floor fittings at Frame 36, below the lower surface panel. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

    To prevent such damage, Airbus developed modification 21282, which was introduced in production from [manufacturer serial number] MSN 0105, to reinforce the pressurized floor fitting lower surface by changing material. For affected in-service aeroplanes, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-57-1028, introducing repetitive inspections, and SB A320-57-1029, which provides modification instructions.

    DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued [an] AD * * * [for Model A320-111, -211, and -231 airplanes] to require these repetitive inspections and, depending on findings, corrective action(s), while the modification was specified in that AD as optional terminating action for these inspections.

    Following new analysis in the frame of ESG (Extended Service Goal) exercise, the inspection thresholds and intervals have been revised to meet the original DSG (Design Service Goal).

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of [a] DGAC France AD * * *, which is superseded, but requires these actions within reduced compliance times. [This EASA AD also adds Model A320-212 airplanes to its applicability.]

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-1427. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013. The service information describes procedures for an inspection to detect cracks of the pressurized floor fittings at frame (FR) 36, renewal of the zone protective finish, and replacement of fittings with new fittings.

    Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1029, Revision 02, dated June 16, 1999. The service information describes procedures for modification of the pressurized floor fittings at FR 36.

    The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. 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 of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Unlike the required actions in the MCAI, this proposed AD would not permit further flight if damage (cracking) is detected during any inspection of the pressurized floor fittings at FR 36. Instead, this proposed AD would require repair of any damage before further flight. We find that, to achieve an adequate level of safety for the affected fleet, damaged structural elements must be replaced prior to further flight. This difference has been coordinated with EASA.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 96-18-06, Amendment 39-9730 (61 FR 46703, September 5, 1996), and retained in this proposed AD, take about 3 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 96-18-06 is $255 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 11 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $12,155, or $935 per product.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We 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. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 96-18-06, Amendment 39-9730 (61 FR 46703, September 5, 1996), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-1427; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-203-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 20, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 96-18-06, Amendment 39-9730 (61 FR 46703, September 5, 1996).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 0002 through 0104 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an extended service goal analysis by the manufacturer, which revealed that the compliance times and repetitive inspection intervals should be reduced to meet the design service goal. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the pressurized floor fittings at FR 36, which could result in failure of a floor fitting and subsequent depressurization of the fuselage.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Retained Inspection

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 96-18-06, Amendment 39-9730 (61 FR 46703, September 5, 1996), with revised service information for Airbus Model A320-211 and -231 airplanes. Prior to the accumulation of 16,000 total landings, or within 6 months after October 10, 1996 (the effective date of AD 96-18-06), whichever occurs later, perform a visual inspection to detect cracks of the 6 fittings of the pressurized floor at frame 36 under the lower surface panel, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 1, dated April 19, 1996; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013, for accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph. Accomplishment of the initial inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the actions required by this paragraph.

    (1) If no cracking is found, prior to further flight, renew the zone protective finish, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 1, dated April 19, 1996; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013, for accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph. Repeat the visual inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12,000 landings.

    (2) If only 1 of the 6 fittings is found to be cracked and that crack is less than or equal to 0.59 inch (15 mm) in length, prior to further flight, replace the cracked fitting with a new fitting, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 1, dated April 19, 1996; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013. Thereafter, prior to the accumulation of 500 landings following accomplishment of this replacement, replace the remaining 5 fittings with new fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 1, dated April 19, 1996; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013, for accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph.

    (3) If only 1 of the 6 fittings is found to be cracked, and that crack is greater than 0.59 inch (15 mm) in length, prior to further flight, replace all six fittings with new fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 1, dated April 19, 1996; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013, for accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph.

    (4) If 2 or more fittings are found to be cracked, prior to further flight, replace all 6 fittings with new fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 1, dated April 19, 1996; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013, for accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph.

    (h) Retained Optional Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (b) of AD 96-18-06, Amendment 39-9730 (61 FR 46703, September 5, 1996), with revised service information for Airbus Model A320-211 and -231 airplanes. Replacement of all 6 fittings with new fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 01, dated April 19, 1996; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013; constitutes terminating action for the inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) New Inspection

    (1) At the latest of the times in paragraph (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), or (i)(1)(iii) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the pressurized floor fittings at frame 36, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1028, Revision 02, dated June 3, 2013. Repeat the inspection thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 9,300 flight cycles or 18,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first. Accomplishment of the initial inspection required by this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) Prior to the accumulation of 20,900 total flight cycles or 41,800 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (ii) Prior to the accumulation of 9,300 flight cycles or 18,600 flight cycles since the most recent inspection required by paragraph (g) or (i) of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (iii) At the earlier of the times specified in paragraph (i)(iii)(A) and (i)(iii)(B) of this AD.

    (A) Prior to the accumulation of 1,250 flight cycles or 2,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (B) Prior to the accumulation of 12,000 flight cycles since the most recent inspection required by paragraph (g) or (i) of this AD.

    (2) If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (j) New Optional Terminating Action

    Modification (replacement of aluminum fittings with titanium fittings) of the pressurized floor fittings at frame 36, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1029, Revision 02, dated June 16, 1999, is terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 96-18-06, Amendment 39-9730 (61 FR 46703, September 5, 1996), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0226, dated September 23, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1427.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 19, 2015. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13340 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1426; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-200-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 97-20-07, for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). AD 97-20-07 requires repetitive inspections to detect fatigue cracking in the left and right wings in the area where the top skin attaches to the center spar, and repair or modification of this area if necessary. Since we issued AD 97-20-07, we have determined that the inspection compliance time and repetitive inspection interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracking in the left and right wings in the area where the top skin attaches to the center spar. This proposed AD would reduce the inspection compliance time and repetitive inspection intervals. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct this cracking, which could reduce the residual strength of the top skin of the wings, and consequently affect the structural integrity of the airframe.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1426; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-1426; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-200-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    On September 17, 1997, we issued AD 97-20-07, Amendment 39-10145 (62 FR 50251, September 25, 1997). AD 97-20-07 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above. Since we issued AD 97-20-07, we have determined that the inspection compliance time and repetitive inspection interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracking in the left and right wings in the area where the top skin attaches to the center spar.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0221, dated September 19, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

    During fatigue tests conducted in the early 1990's, cracks were found on the top skin of the wing at the centre spar joint between ribs 1 and 7.

    Consequently, Airbus developed production mod. 10089 and issued Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-6041, involving installation of a reinforcing plate on the affected area. Despite this improvement, subsequent cases of cracks were reported by operators.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued SB A300-57-6044 and DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD 95-086-180 (later revised twice) to require repetitive inspections of the affected area and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    Since [DGAC] AD 1995-086-180(B)R2 [which corresponds to FAA AD 97-20-07, Amendment 39-10145 (62 FR 50251, September 25, 1997)] was issued, a fleet survey and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance Analyses were performed in order to substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2) exercise. The results of these analyses have shown that the inspection thresholds and intervals must be reduced to allow timely detection of these cracks and accomplishment of an applicable corrective action.

    Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued SB A300-57-6044 Revision 04 [dated August 19, 2011].

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 1995-086-180(B)R2, which is superseded, but requires the repetitive inspections to be accomplished at reduced thresholds and intervals and, depending on findings, corrective actions.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-1426.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. The service information describes procedures for inspections to detect fatigue cracking in the left and right wings in the area where the top skin attaches to the center spar, and repair or modification of this area. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. 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 of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 47 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions that are required by AD 97-20-07, Amendment 39-10145 (62 FR 50251, September 25, 1997), and retained in this proposed AD take about 3 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 97-20-07 is $255 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $19,975, or $425 per product.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We 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. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 97-20-07, Amendment 39-10145 (62 FR 50251, September 25, 1997), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-1426; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-200-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 20, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 97-20-07, Amendment 39-10145 (62 FR 50251, September 25, 1997).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers except those on which Airbus Modification 10160 has been done in production.

    (1) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.

    (4) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the inspection compliance time and repetitive inspection interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracking in the left and right wings in the area where the top skin attaches to the center spar. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct this cracking, which could reduce the residual strength of the top skin of the wings, and consequently affect the structural integrity of the airframe.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Retained Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions With Revised Service information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 97-20-07, Amendment 39-10145 (62 FR 50251, September 25, 1997), with revised service information. For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 10089 has not been installed: Prior to the accumulation of 18,000 total landings, or within 1,500 landings after October 30, 1997 (the effective date of AD 97-20-07), whichever occurs later, conduct either a detailed visual inspection or a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to detect fatigue cracking in the left and right wings in the area where the top skin attaches to the center spar between ribs 1 and 7, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 02, dated September 6, 1995, including Appendix 1; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. Accomplishment of the inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the inspection requirements of this paragraph.

    (1) If no cracking is detected, conduct repetitive inspections thereafter at the following intervals:

    (i) If the immediately preceding inspection was conducted using detailed visual techniques, conduct the next inspection within 5,000 landings.

    (ii) If the immediately preceding inspection was conducted using HFEC techniques, conduct the next inspection within 9,500 landings.

    (2) If any cracking is detected or suspected during any detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (g), (g)(1), or (g)(3)(i) of this AD, prior to further flight, confirm this finding and the length of this cracking by conducting an HFEC inspection, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 02, dated September 6, 1995, including Appendix 01; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. If no cracking is confirmed during the HFEC inspection, accomplish the repetitive inspection required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD at the time specified in that paragraph.

    (3) If any cracking is detected or confirmed during any HFEC inspection required by paragraph (g), (g)(1), or (g)(2) of this AD:

    (i) If the cracking is 75 millimeters (mm) or less per rib bay, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 02, dated September 6, 1995, including Appendix 01; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. Thereafter, conduct repetitive detailed visual inspections of the repaired area at intervals not to exceed 50 landings, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 02, dated September 6, 1995, including Appendix 01; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011.

    (ii) If the cracking exceeds 75 mm per rib bay, prior to further flight, install Airbus Modification 10089, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 02, dated September 6, 1995, including Appendix 01; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. Thereafter, conduct a low frequency eddy current inspection in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 02, dated September 6, 1995, including Appendix 01 references Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6041, Revision 04, dated November 16, 1995, as an additional source of guidance for installing Airbus Modification 10089.

    (h) Retained Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions for Certain Airplanes with Revised Service Information and Repair Instructions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 97-20-07, Amendment 39-10145 (62 FR 50251, September 25, 1997), with revised service information and repair instructions. For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 10089 has been installed: Prior to the accumulation of 22,000 total landings after this modification has been installed, or within 1,500 landings after October 30, 1997 (the effective date of AD 97-20-07), whichever occurs later, conduct a low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspection to detect fatigue cracking in the inboard and rear edges of the top skin reinforcing plates, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 02, dated September 6, 1995, including Appendix 01; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. Accomplishment of the inspection required by paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the inspection requirements of this paragraph.

    (1) If no cracking is detected, repeat this inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 11,000 landings.

    (2) If any cracking is detected, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. As of the effective date of this AD, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Thereafter, repeat this inspection at intervals not to exceed 11,000 landings.

    (i) New Requirement of This AD: Initial Inspections

    For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 10089 has not been installed: At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, do either a detailed visual inspection or an HFEC inspection to detect fatigue cracking in the left and right wings in the area where the top skin attaches to the center spar between ribs 1 and 7, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. Accomplishment of the inspection required by this paragraph terminates the inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes whose flight time average is equal to or more than 1.5 hours, at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Before the accumulation of 14,000 total flight cycles or 30,300 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (ii) Within 1,500 flight cycles or 3,200 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For airplanes whose flight time average is less than 1.5 hours, at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Before the accumulation of 15,100 total flight cycles or 22,700 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (ii) Within 1,600 flight cycles or 2,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (j) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive Inspections

    Repeat the inspections specified in paragraph (i) of this AD thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes whose flight time average is equal to or more than 1.5 hours, at the applicable interval specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) For a detailed inspection, at intervals not to exceed 3,900 flight cycles or 8,400 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (ii) For an HFEC inspection, at intervals not to exceed 7,400 flight cycles or 16,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For airplanes whose flight time average is less than 1.5 hours at the applicable interval specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) For a detailed inspection, at intervals not to exceed 4,200 flight cycles or 6,300 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (ii) For an HFEC inspection, at intervals not to exceed 8,000 flight cycles or 11,900 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (k) New Requirement of This AD: Initial Inspection for Certain Airplanes

    For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 10089 has been installed: At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD, do an LFEC inspection to detect fatigue cracking in the inboard and rear edges of the top skin reinforcing plates, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. Accomplishment of the inspection required by this paragraph terminates the inspection requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes whose flight time average is equal to or more than 1.5 hours, at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and (k)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Before the accumulation of 17,000 total flight cycles or 37,100 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (ii) Within 1,500 flight cycles or 3,200 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For airplanes whose flight time average is less than 1.5 hours, at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (k)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Before the accumulation of 18,500 total flight cycles or 27,800 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (ii) Within 1,600 flight cycles or 2,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (l) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive Inspections for Certain Airplanes

    Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (k) of this AD thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes whose flight time average is equal to or more than 1.5 hours, at intervals not to exceed 8,500 flight cycles or 18,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For airplanes whose flight time average is less than 1.5 hours, at intervals not to exceed 9,200 flight cycles or 13,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (m) New Requirement of This AD: Corrective Actions

    (1) If any cracking is detected or suspected during any detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD: Before further flight, confirm this finding and the length of this cracking by conducting an HFEC inspection, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. If no cracking is confirmed during the HFEC inspection, accomplish the applicable repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (j) and (l) of this AD at the applicable time specified in those paragraphs.

    (2) If any cracking is found during any HFEC inspection required by paragraph (i), (j), (k) or (l) of this AD: Before further flight, do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (m)(2)(i) and (m)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) If the cracking is 75 mm or less per each rib bay: Before further flight, repair the cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. Do repetitive detailed visual inspections of the repaired area thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 flight cycles or 110 flight hours, whichever occurs first, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. Within 250 flight cycles or 550 flight hours, whichever occurs first after doing the temporary repair, do a permanent repair of the repaired area, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011.

    (ii) If the cracking exceeds 75 mm per any rib bay: Before further flight, install Airbus Modification 10089, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. Do an LFEC inspection thereafter at the intervals specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (3) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this AD at fastener holes 1A, 1, or 2: Before further flight, repair the cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011.

    (n) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (i) through (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 03, dated April 7, 1999, including Appendix 01, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (o) Exception to Service Information Specification

    Although Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011, specifies to submit information to Airbus, this AD does not require that submission.

    (p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0221, dated September 19, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1426.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 19, 2015. Dionne Palmero, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13335 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1423; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-173-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 757-200 Series Airplanes Modified by Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01529SE or STC ST02278SE AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200 series airplanes modified by particular STCs. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of a main cargo door being blown past its full open position while on the ground during gusty wind conditions, which resulted in uncontrolled fall down to its closed position. This proposed AD would require installing a new placard and bracket, replacement of an existing placard, and replacement of the main cargo door control panel. We are proposing this AD to prevent damage to the main cargo door, which could result in rapid decompression, leading to in-flight breakup.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Precision Conversions LLC, 4900 SW Griffith Drive, Suite 133, Beaverton, OR 97005; ATTN: Steven A. Lopez; phone: 503-601-3001; email: [email protected]. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1423; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Narinder Luthra, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6513; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-1423; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-173-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We received reports of a main cargo door being blown past its full open position during gusty wind conditions, resulting in a subsequent uncontrolled fall down to its closed position. It was determined that the Precision Conversions freighter conversion installs a main cargo door that, in certain wind conditions, can rotate open past the full-open position. This can result in damage to the door and surrounding structure, which can go unnoticed by the crew. If a damaged airplane takes off and is pressurized per normal procedures the cargo door could fail. This condition, if not corrected, could result in rapid decompression, leading to in-flight breakup.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Precision Conversions LLC Service Bulletin PC-757-11-0023, dated August 1, 2014. The service information describes procedures for installing a new placard and bracket, replacement of an existing placard, and replacement of the main cargo door control panel. 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 of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Installation 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 $0 $510 $4,590

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We 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) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-1423; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-173-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 20, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200 series airplanes modified by the applicable supplemental type certificate identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.

    (1) ST01529SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/0AF09C3701A237EE86257A5D0064B3AA?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01529se).

    (2) ST02278SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/E54B5289A2E9F6EF86257B7F0056EDAF?OpenDocument&Highlight=st02278se).

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 11, Placards and Markings.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of a main cargo door being blown past its full open position while on the ground during gusty wind conditions, which resulted in uncontrolled fall down to its closed position. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to the main cargo door, which could result in rapid decompression, leading to in-flight breakup.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Installation

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, install a new placard and bracket, replace the existing placard, and replace the main cargo door control panel, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Precision Conversions LLC Service Bulletin PC-757-11-0023, dated August 1, 2014.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Narinder Luthra, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM 120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6513; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Precision Conversions LLC, 4900 SW Griffith Drive, Suite 133, Beaverton, OR 97005; ATTN: Steven A. Lopez; phone: 503-601-3001; email: [email protected] You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 18, 2015. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13358 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1422; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-125-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-18-26, for certain Airbus Model A320 series airplanes. AD 98-18-26 currently requires repetitive inspections to detect fatigue cracking of the front spar vertical stringers on the wings; and repair, if necessary. Since we issued AD 98-18-26, we have received reports that indicate new repetitive inspections having new thresholds and intervals are needed and that additional work is needed to accomplish the inspections on airplanes on which a previous modification has been accomplished. This proposed AD would require repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking of the radius of the front spar vertical stringers and the horizontal floor beam on frame 36, and a rototest inspection for cracking of the fastener holes of the front spar vertical stringers on frame 36, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the front spar vertical stringers on the wings, which could result in the reduced structural integrity of the airframe.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    • Fax: 202-493-2251.

    • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1422; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-1422; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-125-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    On August 28, 1998, we issued AD 98-18-26, Amendment 39-10742 (63 FR 47423, September 8, 1998). AD 98-18-26 requires repetitive inspections to detect fatigue cracking of the front spar vertical stringers on the wings, which could result in the reduced structural integrity of the airframe on certain Airbus Model A320 series airplanes. AD 98-18-26 contains a modification that provides a terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements.

    Since we issued AD 98-18-26, Amendment 39-10742 (63 FR 47423, September 8, 1998), we have received reports that indicate new repetitive inspections having new thresholds and intervals are needed and that additional work is needed to accomplish the inspections on airplanes where shims were installed under the heads of 2 fasteners at the top end of the front spar vertical stringers using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1017, dated September 3, 1991; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1017, Revision 01, dated March 17, 1997, or on which modification 21290P1546 was accomplished during production.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0069, dated March 19, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During center fuselage certification full scale fatigue test, cracks were found on the front vertical stringer at frame 36. Analysis of these findings indicated that a number of in-service aeroplanes could be similarly affected.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to crack propagation and consequent deterioration of the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, [Directorate General for Civil Aviation] DGAC France AD 97-311-105 [which corresponds to FAA AD 98-18-26, Amendment 39-10742 (63 FR 47423, September 8, 1998)] was issued to require repetitive [HFEC] inspections [for cracking] in accordance with the instruction of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-57-1016. At the same time, the modification provided by Airbus SB A320-57-1017 was considered to be terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by DGAC France AD 97-311-105.

    Since that [DGAC] AD was issued, and following new analysis, modification per Airbus SB A320-57-1017 is no longer considered to be terminating action for the repetitive inspections as required by DGAC France AD 97-311-105.

    Aeroplanes with [manufacturer serial number] MSN 0080 up to 0155 inclusive have been delivered with the addition of a 5 [millimeter] mm thick light alloy shim under the heads of 2 fasteners at the top end of the front spar vertical stringers (Airbus modification 21290P1546, which is the production line equivalent to in-service modification through Airbus SB A320-57-1017). From MSN 0156 and higher, all aeroplanes are delivered with vertical stiffeners of the forward wing spar upper end with stiffener cap thickness increased from 4 to 6 mm (Airbus modification 21290P1547).

    Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued SB A320-57-1178 to introduce new repetitive inspections with new thresholds and intervals.

    For the reasons described above, DGAC France AD 97-311-105 is superseded and this [EASA] AD requires the repetitive inspections at new thresholds and intervals.

    After EASA issued [proposed airworthiness directive] PAD 14-021, it was discovered that additional work [HFEC inspections for cracking of the radius of spar vertical stringers and horizontal beam in the center fuselage of frame 36, and a rototest inspection for cracking of the fastener holes of the spar vertical stringers radius on Frame 36 and repair if necessary], to be included in Revision 01 of Airbus SB A320-57-1178, is required to accomplish the inspections. This Final [EASA] AD has been amended accordingly.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1422. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-57-1178, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated May 28, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the radius of the front spar vertical stringers and the horizontal floor beam on frame 36 for cracking. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. 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 of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    Although EASA AD 2014-0069, dated March 19, 2014, specifies to accomplish an HFEC inspection for cracking of the vertical stiffeners radius, this proposed AD would require accomplishing an HFEC inspection for cracking of the radius of the front spar vertical stringers, since Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1178, Revision 01, Appendix 01, dated May 28, 2014, specifies the inspection is of the front spar vertical stringers.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 17 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 24 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $34,680, or $2,040 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 49 work-hours and require parts costing $1,210, for a cost of $5,375 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We 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. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-18-26, Amendment 39-10742 (63 FR 47423, September 8, 1998), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-1422; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-125-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 20, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 98-18-26, Amendment 39-10742 (63 FR 47423, September 8, 1998).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers 0001 through 0155 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by cracks found on the front vertical stringer at frame 36. This AD was also prompted by reports that indicate new repetitive inspections having new thresholds and intervals are needed and that additional work is needed to accomplish the inspections on airplanes on which a previous modification has been accomplished. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the front spar vertical stringers on the wings, which could result in the reduced structural integrity of the airframe.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Inspections

    Within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD, do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the radius of the front spar vertical stringers and the horizontal floor beam on frame 36, and do a rototest inspection for cracking of the fastener holes of the front spar vertical stringers on frame 36, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1178, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated May 28, 2014. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For Configuration 1 airplanes identified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: At intervals not to exceed 8,800 flight cycles or 17,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For Configuration 2, 3, and 4 airplanes identified in paragraphs (h)(2) through (h)(4) of this AD: At intervals not to exceed 24,900 flight cycles or 49,800 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

    (h) Compliance Times for Initial Inspections Required by Paragraph (g) of This AD

    Do the initial inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD.

    (1) For Configuration 1 airplanes, having manufacturer serial number (MSN) 0001 though MSN 0079 inclusive, on which the modification specified by Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1017, dated September 3, 1991; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1017, Revision 01, dated March 17, 1997, has not been accomplished: At the later of the times specified by paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (h)(1)(iii) of this AD:

    (i) The later of the times specified by paragraphs (h)(1)(i)(A) and (h)(1)(i)(B) of this AD:

    (A) Within 24,000 flight cycles or 48,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first since airplane first flight.

    (B) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (ii) Within 8,800 flight cycles or 17,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first, since the last inspection specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1016 was accomplished.

    (iii) Within 850 flight cycles or 1,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, without exceeding 14,000 flight cycles after the last inspection specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1016 was accomplished.

    (2) For Configuration 2 airplanes, having MSN 0001 to 0079 inclusive, on which the actions specified by Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1016, have not been done prior to accomplishing the actions specified by Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1017, dated September 3, 1991; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1017, Revision 01, dated March 17, 1997: At the later of the times specified by paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD:

    (i) Within 8,800 flight cycles or 17,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first, since the modification specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1017, dated September 3, 1991; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1017, Revision 01, dated December 6, 1995, was accomplished.

    (ii) Within 850 flight cycles or 1,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.

    (3) For Configuration 3 airplanes, having MSN 0001 to 0079 inclusive, on which the actions specified by Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1016, have been done prior to accomplishing the actions specified by Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1017, dated September 3, 1991; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1017, Revision 01, dated March 17, 1997: At the later of the times specified by paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of this AD:

    (i) Within 24,900 flight cycles or 49,800 flight hours, whichever occurs first, since the modification specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1017, dated September 3, 1991; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-57-1017, Revision 01, dated March 17, 1997, was accomplished.

    (ii) Within 850 flight cycles or 1,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.

    (4) For Configuration 4 airplanes, having MSN 0080 to 0155 inclusive:

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(4)(i) or (h)(4)(ii) of this AD:

    (i) Before exceeding 54,300 flight cycles or 108,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first since airplane first flight.

    (ii) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Repair

    If any crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0069, dated March 19, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1422.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 18, 2015. John P. Piccola, Jr., Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13342 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1421; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-177-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 767-300 and -300F series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking on airplanes with Aviation Partners Boeing winglets installed. This proposed AD would require a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the lower outboard wing skin, and repair or modification if necessary. This proposed AD would also require one of three follow-on actions: Repeating the HFEC inspections; modifying certain internal stringers and oversizing and plugging the existing fastener holes of the lower wing; or modifying the external doubler/tripler and doing repetitive post-modification inspections. We are proposing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in the lower outboard wing skin, which could result in failure and subsequent separation of the wing and winglet and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 S. 102nd Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; telephone 206-762-1171; Internet https://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1421; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allen Rauschendorfer, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6487; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-1421; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-177-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We have received reports of fatigue cracking in the lower outboard wing skin at the inboard fastener of stringer L-9.5 on Model 767-300 airplanes with Aviation Partners Boeing winglets installed. The cracks were found at the fastener holes common to the inboard end of the outboard stringer L-9.5 on the left- and right-hand wings. Investigation revealed that these were fatigue cracks related to Aviation Partners Boeing STC ST01920SE winglet retrofit kit installations. If not corrected, these cracks could extend to adjacent structure and could lead to reduced load carrying capability in the lower skin. Later investigation revealed more cracking along the lower wing skin as a result of fatigue due to higher-than-predicted fastener loads and skin stress peaking at the inboard end of stringer L-9.5. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in failure and subsequent separation of the wing and winglet, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspecting for cracking of the external surface of the lower outboard wing skin, and repair or modification if necessary. The service information also includes certain follow-on actions. 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 of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between this Proposed Rule and the Service Information.”

    Difference Between Proposed Rule and Service Information

    Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

    • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 140 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs—Required Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Inspection 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $0 $255 $35,700
    Estimated Costs—Optional Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Repetitive inspections 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 per inspection cycle $0 $255 Repair/Modification 262 work-hours × $85 per hour = $22,270 0 22,270 Terminating Modification 262 work-hours × $85 per hour = $22,270 0 22,270

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We 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) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-1421; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-177-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 20, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-300 and -300F series airplanes, certificated in any category, with Aviation Partners Boeing winglets installed; as identified in Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the lower outboard wing skin at the inboard fastener of stringer L-9.5 on airplanes with winglets installed per Supplemental Type Certificate ST01920SE. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking in the lower outboard wing skin, which could result in failure and subsequent separation of the wing and winglet and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Inspection and Repair or Modification and Post-Repair or Modification Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD: Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the lower outboard wing skin, as specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

    (1) For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes: Do an internal HFEC inspection at the inboard fasteners of stringer L-9.5, in accordance with PART 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014; and do the applicable actions required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) If any cracking is found, before further flight, do the repair or modification specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (ii) If no cracking is found, do the applicable actions specified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A), (g)(1)(ii)(B), or (g)(1)(ii)(C) of this AD at the time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014.

    (A) Repeat the HFEC inspection.

    (B) Do a preventive modification of the external doubler/tripler filler and stringer L-6.5, in accordance with PART 2 through 6, or PART 8, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014. If PART 8 was done, do repetitive HFEC inspections for cracking of the lower outboard wing skin common to the external doubler/tripler repair, in accordance with PART 9 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. If any cracking is found: Before further flight, do a repair or modification using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (C) Do a repair or modification in accordance with PART 8, and do repetitive HFEC inspections for cracking of the lower outboard wing skin common to the external doubler/tripler repair, in accordance with PART 9 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. If any cracking is found: Before further flight, do a repair or modification using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (2) For Group 3 airplanes: Do an internal HFEC inspection at the inboard fasteners of stringer L-9.5, in accordance with PART 7a of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014. Do an external HFEC inspection at the inboard fasteners of stringer L-6.5 in accordance with PART 7b of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014; and do the applicable actions required by paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, at the time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014.

    (i) If any cracking is found: Before further flight, do a repair or modification using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (ii) If no cracking is found: Repeat the HFEC inspections at the time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014.

    (h) Terminating Modification and Repair and Post-Repair or Modification Inspections

    Modification of the external doubler/tripler filler and stringer L-6.5, in accordance with PART 2 through PART 6, or repair or modification in accordance with PART 8, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, terminates the repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A) of this AD, provided the conditions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD are met. If any cracking is found: Before further flight, do a repair or modification using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (1) The repair or modification must be done within the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (2) Repetitive post-repair or modification inspections for cracking of the lower outboard wing skin common to the external doubler/tripler repair must be done in accordance with PART 9 of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014, within the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014, except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. If any cracking is found: Before further flight, do a repair or modification using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD; which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (1) Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2014.

    (2) Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 4, dated April 22, 2014.

    (3) Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 6, dated August 15, 2014.

    (j) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014, specifies a compliance time “after the initial issue date on this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Where Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-010, Revision 7, dated November 4, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Allen Rauschendorfer, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6487; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 S. 102nd Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; telephone 206-762-1171; Internet https://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 13, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13328 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1419; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-183-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 188 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating the left and right lower surface panels of the wings are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking at these panels, and repair if necessary. The proposed AD would also require a one-time bolt-hole eddy current inspection of all open holes for cracking, repair if necessary, and modification. We are proposing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the left and right lower surface panels of the wings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone 770-494-5444; fax 770-494-5445; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1419; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5554; fax: 404-474-5605; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-1419; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-183-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses. This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings, or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as WFD. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

    The FAA's WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.

    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

    This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the left and right lower surface panels of the wings are subject to WFD. The root cause of WFD is fatigue cracks manifesting and growing simultaneously at similar structural details and stress levels on the outer wings. Fatigue cracking is increasingly likely as the airplane is being operated and is aging; without intervention, fatigue cracking of the left and right lower surface panels of the wings on the inboard and outboard sides of the buttock line (BL) 65 splice joint could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    We reviewed Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-707C, Revision C, dated April 30, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections for cracking of the left and right lower surface panels of the wings on the inboard and outboard sides of the BL 65 splice joint, and repair if necessary. This service information also describes procedures for a one-time bolt-hole eddy current inspection of all open holes for cracking, repair if necessary, and modification of the BL 65 wing root joint. 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 of this NPRM.

    Related ADs

    This proposed AD is related to AD 81-03-53, Amendment 39-4243 (Docket No. 81-NW-7-AD) (46 FR 52090, October 26, 1981); and AD 81-03-53R1, Amendment 39-4301 (Docket No. 81-NW-97-AD) (47 FR 3347, January 25, 1982); for all Lockheed Model L-188 series airplanes. AD 81-03-53R1 requires inspecting for fuel leakage and fatigue cracks, and replacement, as necessary, of defective parts on the wing lower BL 65 splice joints.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type designs.

    Proposed AD Requirements

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

    Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the modification specified in this proposed AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant structure is replaced before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly warrant such an extension.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    X-ray or ultrasonic inspections Up to 40 work-hours × $85 per hour = up to $3,400 $0 Up to $3,400 Up to $13,600. Bolt hole inspections 60 work-hours × $85 per hour = $5,100 0 $5,100 $20,400. Modification 400 work-hours × $85 per hour = $ 34,000 5,000 $39,000 $156,000.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs.

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Repair 500 work-hours × $85 per hour = $42,500 $0 $42,500
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We 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) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-1419; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-183-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 20, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 81-03-53, Amendment 39-4243 (Docket No. 81-NW-7-AD) (46 FR 52090, October 26, 1981); and AD 81-03-53R1, Amendment 39-4301 (Docket No. 81-NW-97-AD) (47 FR 3347, January 25, 1982).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Model 188A and 188C airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 1001 and subsequent.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating the left and right lower surface panels of the wings are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the left and right lower surface panels of the wings on the inboard and outboard sides of the buttock line (BL) 65 splice joint, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Inspections and Repair

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: Inspect for cracking of the inboard and outboard sides of the lower splice joint at BL 65, using X-ray, ultrasonic, and bolt-hole eddy current inspection techniques, as applicable, and repair any cracking found, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-707C, Revision C, dated April 30, 2014. All applicable repairs must be done before further flight. Repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight hours, until the modification required by paragraph (h) of this AD has been done. Accomplishing the inspections required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraphs A. and B. of AD 81-03-53, Amendment 39-4243 (Docket No. 81-NW-7-AD) (46 FR 52090, October 26, 1981); and AD 81-03-53R1, Amendment 39-4301 (Docket No. 81-NW-97-AD) (47 FR 3347-01, January 25, 1982).

    (1) Before the accumulation of 19,000 total flight hours.

    (2) Within 600 flight hours or 365 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (h) Modification

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Do a bolt-hole eddy current inspection of all open holes for cracking, repair any cracking found before further flight, and modify the BL 65 wing root lower joint, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-707C, Revision C, dated April 30, 2014. Accomplishing this modification terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (1) Before the accumulation of 29,000 total flight hours.

    (2) Within 600 flight hours or 365 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (i) No Reporting Required

    Although Lockheed Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB-707C, Revision C, dated April 30, 2014, specifies to submit a report of crack findings, this AD does not include that requirement.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: 404-474-5554; fax: 404-474-5605; email: [email protected].

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, Marietta, GA 30063; telephone 770-494-5444; fax 770-494-5445; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 14, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13339 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1935; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-008-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. This proposed AD would require visually inspecting certain subfloor frames for a crack. This proposed AD is prompted by reports of cracks on in-service helicopters. The proposed actions are intended to detect or prevent a crack in the subfloor frame, which could result in failure of the pilot and co-pilot pedal support frame and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 4, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to the “Mail” address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015 Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39-0331-664757; fax 39-0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bulletins. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

    Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2014-0048, dated March 4, 2014, to correct an unsafe condition for Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters with a serial number (S/N) 31005 through 31517 (except S/N 31007, 31415, 31431, 31491, 31500, 31508, and 31516) and S/N 41001 through 41356 (except S/N 41355). EASA advises that cracks have been reported in the subfloor frame at station (STA) 2105 on in-service helicopters. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the pedals supporting the frame, which in turn could lead to the pedals being inoperative and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, EASA advises.

    The EASA AD requires repetitive inspections of the subfloor frame at STA 2105 for a crack. The EASA AD also requires installation of frame reinforcements before further flight if there is a crack or within 1,200 flight hours if there is no crack. The EASA AD provides that installation of the frame reinforcements constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by the AD.

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed AgustaWestland Bolletino Tecnico No. 139-311, Revision B, dated June 4, 2014 (BT), for certain serial-numbered Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. The BT calls for visual inspections of the subfloor frames within 30 flight hours or two months, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals of 300 flight hours or 6 months, whichever comes first, until frame reinforcements are installed to prevent future failures. The BT also specifies installing the frame reinforcements immediately if a crack is found and within 1,200 flight hours if a crack is not found. 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 of this NPRM.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require:

    • Within 30 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS, using a light, inspecting all visible surfaces of the subfloor frames at station (STA) 2105 for a crack.

    • If there is a crack, before further flight, and if there are no cracks, within 1200 hours TIS, installing frame STA 2105 retromod part number (P/N) 3G5306P47211. This terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires conducting the initial inspection within 30 flight hours or 2 months, whichever occurs first, and thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 300 flight hours or 6 months, whichever occurs first. The proposed AD would require conducting the initial inspection within 30 TIS, and thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 102 U.S.-registered helicopters and that labor costs average $85 a work hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

    • The visual inspection would require 2 work-hours for a labor cost of $170 per helicopter. No parts would be needed, so the cost would total $170 per helicopter, $17,340 for the U.S. fleet.

    • If there are no cracks, installing the frame reinforcements would require 240 work-hours for a labor cost of $20,400 and parts would cost $2,274. The total cost would be $22,674 per helicopter.

    • If there is a crack, installing the frame reinforcements would require 240 work-hours for a labor cost of $20,400 and parts would cost $3,401. The total cost would be $23,801 per helicopter.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We 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, I certify this proposed regulation:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

    2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Agusta S.p.A.: Docket No. FAA-2015-1935; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-008-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Agusta S.p.A. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters, serial number (S/N) 31005 through 31517 (except S/N 31007, 31415, 31431, 31491, 31500, 31508, and 31516) and S/N 41001 through 41356 (except S/N 41355), certificated in any category.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a subfloor frame. This condition could result in failure of the pilot and co-pilot pedal support frame and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 4, 2015.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 30 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS, using a light, inspect all visible surfaces of the left hand subfloor frame, right hand subfloor frame, and middle subfloor frame at station (STA) 2105 for a crack as shown in Figures 10 through 13 of AgustaWestland Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-311, Revision B, dated June 4, 2014 (BT 139-311).

    (2) If there is a crack, before further flight, install frame STA 2105 retromod part number (P/N) 3G5306P47211 by following the Compliance Instructions, Part II, paragraphs 7 through 7.10. of BT 139-311.

    (3) If there are no cracks, within 1200 hours TIS, install frame STA 2105 retromod P/N 3G5306P47211 by following the Compliance Instructions, Part II, paragraphs 7 through 7.10. of BT 139-311.

    (4) Installing frame STA 2105 retromod P/N 3G5306P47211 terminates the repetitive inspection requirements in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

    (f) Special Flight Permit

    Special Flight Permits are prohibited.

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected].

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (h) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) No. 2014-0048, March 4, 2014. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

    (i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5300, Fuselage Structure (General).

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 26, 2015. Lance T. Gant, Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13354 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1345; Airspace Docket No. 14-AWP-13] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Western United States AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish 13 high altitude Area Navigation (RNAV) routes (Q-routes), and one low altitude RNAV route (T-route) in the western United States. The routes would promote operational efficiencies for users and provide connectivity to current and proposed RNAV en route and terminal procedures.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone: (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-1345 and Airspace Docket No. 14-AWP-13 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jason Stahl, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of 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 in the western U.S. to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

    Background

    The development of new RNAV Standard Instrument Departure (SID) and Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR) routes requires incorporation of these proposed Q and T routes into the NAS Route Structure in order to maximize the benefits of increased safety in high volume en route sectors.

    The Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) currently does not have routes that join the Performance Based Navigation (PBN) arrival and departure procedures. The existing conventional jet route structure does not serve the new SID/STAR designs. Routes made up of ground based navigational aids are not capable of delivering aircraft onto the RNAV based arrival and departure procedures in an efficient manner. Developing these predictable and repeatable flight paths (Q and T routes) through a complex area confined by restricted areas will improve throughput and safety for Los Angeles ARTCC.

    This first phase of a two phase project will align a network of Q-Routes with the new SID's and STAR's. The Q-Route structure is projected to optimize descent/climb profiles to/from several airports in southern California and create segregated arrival/departure paths to reduce airspace complexity.

    Comments Invited

    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-2015-1345 and Airspace Docket No. 14-AWP-13) 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 http://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-2015-1345 and Airspace Docket No. 14-AWP-13.” 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.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for 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 office of the Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Ave SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish U.S. RNAV routes Q-70, Q-73, Q-74, Q-78, Q-86, Q-88, Q-90, Q-94, Q-96, Q-98, Q-114, Q-168, T-326, and Q-842, which is an extension of a current Canadian RNAV route and therefore retains the Canadian numbering. The proposed routes would connect to new SID and STAR procedures as designed in the Southern California (SoCal) Metroplex. The proposed routes are outlined below.

    Q-70: Q-70 is proposed from the HAILO, CA, waypoint (WP) to the SAKES, UT, WP to support departures from Los Angeles basin airports to the northeast.

    Q-73: Q-73 would be established from the MOMAR, CA, WP to the CORDU, ID, WP to accommodate arrivals to San Diego airport.

    Q-74: Q-74 is proposed from the NATEE, NV, WP to the DEANN, UT, WP and would support arrivals to John Wayne, Long Beach and Ontario airports from the northeast.

    Q-78: Q-78 would be established from the MARUE, NV, WP to the TOADD, AZ, WP to support arrivals to John Wayne, Long Beach and Ontario airports from the east and northeast.

    Q-86: Q-86 is proposed from the TTRUE, AZ, WP to the PLNDL, AZ, WP for arrivals to San Diego and Ontario airports from the east.

    Q-88: Q-88 would be established from the HAKMN, NV, WP to the CHESZ, UT, WP to support Los Angeles airport arrivals from the northeast.

    Q-90: Q-90 is proposed from the DNERO, CA, WP to the JASSE, AZ, WP and would be the primary RNAV route to Los Angeles from Denver ARTCC.

    Q-94: Q-94 is proposed from the WELUM, NV, WP to the ROOLL, AZ, WP to support Denver ARTCC arrivals to Burbank, Van Nuys, Camarillo, and Oxnard airports.

    Q-96: Q-96 would be established from the PURSE, NV, WP to the KIMMR, UT, WP to support arrivals to Burbank, Van Nuys, Camarillo, and Oxnard airports from the Salt Lake ARTCC.

    Q-98: Q-98 is proposed from the HAKMN, NV, WP to the PEEWE, AZ, WP to support Denver ARTCC arrivals to Los Angeles and San Diego airports.

    Q-114: Q-114 would extend from the NATEE, NV, WP to the BUGGG, UT, WP to support Salt Lake ARTCC arrivals to Long Beach, Ontario, and Orange County airports.

    Q-168: Q-168 would extend from the FNNDA, CA, WP to the JASSE, AZ, WP and would be the primary arrival route for Los Angeles airport from the Denver ARTCC.

    Q-842: Existing Canadian route Q-842 would extend south into U.S. airspace. The proposed route would begin at the BEALE, NV, WP and extend north to the existing TOVUM, AB, WP in Canada. This would provide routing for departures from Los Angeles, Long Beach, Ontario, and Orange County airports to airports in Calgary and Edmonton, Canada.

    T-326: Finally, this rule would establish low altitude RNAV route T-326, from the Mission Bay, CA, VORTAC (MZB) to the Imperial, CA, VORTAC (IPL) to transition from the San Diego area to the east, remaining south of restricted airspace R-2510 and the Kane Military Operations Area (MOA).

    High altitude United States RNAV routes are published in paragraph 2006, high altitude Canadian RNAV routes are published in paragraph 2007, and low altitude United States RNAV routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The high altitude United States RNAV routes (Q-routes), low altitude United States RNAV routes (T-routes), and high altitude Canadian RNAV routes listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of

    Transportation (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 proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 2006. United States Area Navigation Routes Q-70 HAILO, CA to SAKES, UT (New) HAILO, CA WP (Lat. 35°38′14.00″ N., long. 115°58′16.00″ W.) LAS, NV VOR (Lat. 36°04′46.93″ N., long. 115°09′35.27″ W.) IFEYE, NV WP (Lat. 36°24′56.04″ N., long. 114°47′49.32″ W.) BLIPP, NV WP (Lat. 36°42′41.31″ N., long. 114°28′26.45″ W.) EEVUN, UT WP (Lat. 37°02′52.90″ N., long. 113°42′42.56″ W.) BLOBB, UT WP (Lat. 37°17′45.63″ N., long. 113°06′52.16″ W.) BAWER, UT WP (Lat. 37°38′06.68″ N., long. 112°16′45.89″ W.) SAKES, UT WP (Lat. 38°50′00.51″ N., long. 110°16′16.52″ W.) *    *    *    *    * Q-73 MOMAR, CA to CORDU, ID (New) MOMAR, CA WP (Lat. 33°30′54.13″ N., long. 115°56′40.14″ W.) CABIC, CA WP (Lat. 33°46′17.01″ N., long. 115°49′28.71″ W.) CHADT, CA WP (Lat. 33°55′18.49″ N., long. 115°45′03.26″ W.) LVELL, CA WP (Lat. 34°12′37.38″ N., long. 115°36′53.25″ W.) HAKMN, NV WP (Lat. 35°30′28.31″ N., long. 115°04′47.04″ W.) ZZYZX, NV WP (Lat. 35°39′53.52″ N., long. 114°51′54.99″ W.) LAKRR, AZ WP (Lat. 36°05′07.72″ N., long. 114°17′09.16″ W.) GUNTR, AZ WP (Lat. 36°24′39.65″ N., long. 114°02′11.55″ W.) ZAINY, AZ WP (Lat. 36°39′24.73″ N., long. 113°54′03.50″ W.) EEVUN, UT WP (Lat. 37°02′52.90″ N., long. 113°42′42.56″ W.) WINEN, UT WP (Lat. 37°56′00.00″ N., long. 113°30′00.00″ W.) CRITO, NV WP (Lat. 39°18′00.00″ N., long. 114°33′00.00″ W.) BROPH, ID WP (Lat. 42°43′15.71″ N., long. 114°52′31.80″ W.) DERSO, ID FIX (Lat. 43°21′42.63″ N., long. 115°08′01.66″ W.) SAWTT, ID WP (Lat. 44°37′35.52″ N., long. 115°43′55.55″ W.) HELLS, ID WP (Lat. 45°25′07.35″ N., long. 116°07′15.53″ W.) ZATIP, ID WP (Lat. 46°13′17.48″ N., long. 116°31′37.57″ W.) CORDU, ID WP (Lat. 48°10′46.10″ N., long. 116°40′21.84″ W.) Q-74 NATEE, NV to DEANN, UT (New) NATEE, NV WP (Lat. 35°37′14.00″ N., long. 115°22′26.00″ W.) BLD, NV VOR (Lat. 35°59′44.84″ N., long. 114°51′48.88″ W.) ZAINY, AZ WP (Lat. 36°39′24.73″ N., long. 113°54′03.50″ W.) FIZZL, AZ WP (Lat. 36°56′03.37″ N., long. 113°16′23.91″ W.) GARDD, UT WP (Lat. 37°03′12.91″ N., long. 112°37′54.38″ W.) DEANN, UT WP (Lat. 37°12′34.00″ N., long. 111°42′47.00″ W.) Q-78 MARUE, NV to TOADD, AZ (New) MARUE, NV WP (Lat. 35°15′23.00″ N., long. 114°52′55.00″ W.) DUGGN, AZ WP (Lat. 35°44′06.83″ N., long. 113°23′24.52″ W.) TOADD, AZ WP (Lat. 36°17′45.60″ N., long. 111°30′37.21″ W.) *    *    *    *    * Q-86 TTRUE, AZ to PLNDL, AZ (New) TTRUE, AZ WP (Lat. 34°38′01.53″ N., long. 114°23′05.05″ W.) YORRK, AZ WP (Lat. 34°52′03.23″ N., long. 113°55′58.14″ W.) SCHLS, AZ WP (Lat. 35°14′18.55″ N., long. 113°09′42.77″ W.) CUTRO, AZ WP (Lat. 35°36′16.98″ N., long. 112°23′00.00″ W.) VALEQ, AZ WP (Lat. 35°44′01.73″ N., long. 112°06′31.44″ W.) PLNDL, AZ WP (Lat. 35°50′17.43″ N., long. 111°52′40.71″ W.) Q-88 HAKMN, NV to CHESZ, UT (New) HAKMN, NV WP (Lat. 35°30′28.31″ N., long. 115°04′47.04″ W.) ZZYZX, NV WP (Lat. 35°39′53.52″ N., long. 114°51′54.99″ W.) LAKRR, NV WP (Lat. 36°05′07.72″ N., long. 114°17′09.16″ W.) NOOTN, AZ WP (Lat. 36°37′32.63″ N., long. 113°20′40.25″ W.) GARDD, UT WP (Lat. 37°03′12.91″ N., long. 112°37′54.38″ W.) VERKN, UT WP (Lat. 37°23′00.05″ N., long. 112°04′21.69″ W.) PROMT, UT WP (Lat. 37°30′06.70″ N., long. 111°52′12.94″ W.) CHESZ, UT WP (Lat. 38°16′59.03″ N., long. 110°02′11.31″ W.) Q-90 DNERO, CA to JASSE, AZ (New) DNERO, CA WP (Lat. 35°02′07.14″ N., long. 114°54′16.39″ W.) ESGEE, NV WP (Lat. 35°08′00.50″ N., long. 114°37′21.64″ W.) AREAF, AZ WP (Lat. 35°36′31.77″ N., long. 113°13′50.46″ W.) JASSE, AZ WP (Lat. 36°04′15.53″ N., long. 111°48′45.81″ W.) Q-94 WELUM, NV to ROOLL, AZ (New) WELUM, NV WP (Lat. 35°22′56.00″ N., long. 114°55′59.00″ W.) MNGGO, AZ WP (Lat. 35°51′13.55″ N., long. 113°28′23.59″ W.) ROOLL, AZ WP (Lat. 36°27′37.93″ N., long. 111°28′54.98″ W.) Q-96 PURSE, NV to KIMMR, UT (New) PURSE, NV WP (Lat. 35°34′54.00″ N., long. 115°11′53.00″ W.) DODDL, NV WP (Lat. 35°49′28.80″ N., long. 114°51′51.29″ W.) BFUNE, AZ WP (Lat. 36°06′10.73″ N., long. 114°28′40.09″ W.) GUNTR, AZ WP (Lat. 36°24′39.65″ N., long. 114°02′11.55″ W.) PIIXR, AZ WP (Lat. 36°36′29.27″ N., long. 113°45′02.40″ W.) FIZZL, AZ WP (Lat. 36°56′03.37″ N., long. 113°16′23.91″ W) BAWER, UT WP (Lat. 37°38′06.68″ N., long. 112°16′45.89″ W.) ROCCY, UT WP (Lat. 37°49′41.63″ N., long. 111°59′59.84″ W.) SARAF, UT WP (Lat. 38°36′03.84″ N., long. 110°53′24.20″ W.) KIMMR, UT WP (Lat. 39°13′45.24″ N., long. 109°57′30.10″ W.) Q-98 HAKMN, NV to PEEWE, AZ (New) HAKMN, NV WP (Lat. 35°30′28.31″ N., long. 115°04′47.04″ W.) ZZYZX, NV WP (Lat. 35°39′53.52″ N., long. 114°51′54.99″ W.) LAKRR, NV WP (Lat. 36°05′07.72″ N., long. 114°17′09.16″ W.) DUZIT, AZ WP (Lat. 36°24′51.20″ N., long. 113°24′51.53″ W.) EEEZY, AZ WP (Lat. 36°44′33.18″ N., long. 112°21′40.77″ W.) PEEWE, AZ WP (Lat. 36°58′08.69″ N., long. 111°36′40.81″ W.) *    *    *    *    * Q-114 NATEE, NV to BUGGG, UT (New) NATEE, NV WP (Lat. 35°37′14.00″ N., long. 115°22′26.00″ W.) BLD, NV VOR (Lat. 35°59′44.84″ N., long. 114°51′48.88″ W.) ZAINY, AZ WP (Lat. 36°39′24.73″ N., long. 113°54′03.50″ W.) AHOWW, UT WP (Lat. 37°07′14.56″ N., long. 113°11′34.04″ W.) BAWER, UT WP (Lat. 37°38′06.68″ N., long. 112°16′45.89″ W.) BUGGG, UT WP (Lat. 38°39′18.31″ N., long. 109°29′48.01″ W.) *    *    *    *    * Q-168 FNNDA, CA to JASSE, AZ (New) FNNDA, CA WP (Lat. 34°45′14.96″ N., long. 114°45′18.49″ W.) SHIVA, AZ WP (Lat. 34°58′12.28″ N., long. 114°17′24.65″ W.) KRINA, AZ WP (Lat. 35°28′02.52″ N., long. 113°11′35.60″ W.) JASSE, AZ WP (Lat. 36°04′15.53″ N., long. 111°48′45.81″ W.) Paragraph 2007. Canadian Area Navigation Routes Q-842 BEALE, NV to TOVUM, AB Canada (New) BEALE, NV WP (Lat. 36°10′56.60″ N., long. 114°49′34.81″ W.) BLIPP, NV WP (Lat. 36°42′41.31″ N., long. 114°28′26.45″ W.) WINEN, UT WP (Lat. 37°56′00.00″ N., long. 113°30′00.00″ W.) TABLL, UT WP (Lat. 38°39′56.31″ N., long. 113°10′35.15″ W.) PICHO, UT WP (Lat. 39°58′00.00″ N., long. 112°35′00.00″ W.) PATIO, UT WP (Lat. 41°16′00.00″ N., long. 112°32′00.00″ W.) PROXI, UT WP (Lat. 41°58′20.81″ N., long. 112°31′33.79″ W.) VAANE, ID WP (Lat. 45°18′12.53″ N., long. 112°44′58.36″ W.) KEETA, MT WP (Lat. 47°20′39.01″ N., long. 112°52′51.46″ W.) TOVUM, AB, Canada WP (Lat. 49°14′29.00″ N., long. 112°48′53.00″ W.)

    Excluding the airspace within Canada.

    Paragraph 6011. United States Area Navigation Routes T-326 Mission Bay, CA to Imperial, CA (New) Mission Bay, CA (MZB) VORTAC (Lat. 32°46′55.93″ N., long. 117°13′31.49″ W.) HAILE, CA WP (Lat. 32°46′45.70″ N., long. 117°00′51.71″ W.) BLLYJ, CA WP (Lat. 32°49′38.06″ N., long. 116°45′56.45″ W.) STAXS, CA WP (Lat. 32°52′16.70″ N., long. 116°32′17.69″ W.) GILYY, CA WP (Lat. 32°52′12.12″ N., long. 116°21′05.24″ W.) KUMBA, CA WP (Lat. 32°45′43.18″ N., long. 116°03′13.37″ W.) Imperial, CA (IPL) VORTAC (Lat. 32°44′55.92″ N., long. 115°30′30.90″ W.)
    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 26, 2015. Gary A. Norek, Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulations Group.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13504 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0228; FRL-9928-08-Region 9] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) and Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from polyester resin operations and oil-water separators. The EPA is proposing to approve local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

    DATES:

    Any comments on this proposal must arrive by July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0228, by one of the following methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

    2. Email: [email protected].

    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to the EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposal addresses the following local rules: EKAPCD Rule 432 Polyester Resin Operations and MDAQMD Rule 464 Oil-Water Separators. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because the EPA believes these SIP revisions are not controversial. If the EPA receives adverse comments, however, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    The EPA does not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If the EPA does not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: May 8, 2015. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13682 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0274; FRL-9928-77-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Plantwide Applicability Limits for Greenhouse Gases AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve aMay 12, 2014 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted for the Commonwealth of Virginia by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). This revision will add Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) provisions for Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) to Virginia's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0274 by one of the following methods:

    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    B. Email: [email protected]

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0274, David Campbell, Associate Director, Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0274. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the Commonwealth's submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 E. Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Talley, (215) 814-2117, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 12, 2014, VADEQ submitted a proposed revision to the Virginia SIP.

    I. Background

    The proposed SIP revision incorporates amendments to Chapter 85 under Article 9 of the Virginia Administrative Code (9VAC5). In a June 3, 2010 final rulemaking action, EPA promulgated regulations known as “the Tailoring Rule,” which phased in permitting requirements for GHG emissions from stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V permitting programs. See 75 FR 31514. For Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, PSD or title V requirements applied to sources of GHG emissions only if the sources were subject to PSD or title V “anyway” due to their emissions of non-GHG pollutants. These sources are referred to as “anyway sources.” Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 2011, applied the PSD and title V permitting requirements under the CAA to sources that were classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a permit, based solely on their potential GHG emissions and to modifications of otherwise major sources that required a PSD permit because they increased only GHGs above applicable levels in the EPA regulations. Subsequently, on May 13, 2011, EPA took final action to approve a revision to Virginia's PSD SIP, incorporating preconstruction permitting requirements for major stationary sources and major modifications of GHGs, consistent with the Federal PSD requirements at the time. See 76 FR 27898.

    In a June 12, 2012 final rulemaking action entitled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits,” 1 (hereafter, Tailoring Rule Step 3), EPA promulgated a number of streamlining measures intended to improve the administration of GHG PSD permitting programs. Included in that rulemaking were provisions to allow sources to obtain GHG PALs on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) 2 basis, rather than strictly on a mass basis. A PAL is an emissions limitation for a single pollutant expressed in tons per year (tpy) that is enforceable as a practical matter and is established source-wide in accordance with specific criteria. See 40 CFR 52.21(aa)(2)(v). PALs offer an alternative method for determining major New Source Review (NSR) applicability: If a source can maintain its overall emissions of the PAL pollutant below the PAL level, the source can make a change without triggering PSD review. Virginia's May 12, 2014 submittal incorporates PAL provisions into Virginia's PSD program, consistent with EPA's Tailoring Rule Step 3.

    1See 77 FR 41051.

    2 CO2e is defined as the mass of the specific GHG (in tons), multiplied by its Global Warming Potential, as codified in 40 CFR part 98.

    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 3 issued a decision addressing the Tailoring Rule and the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The Supreme Court decision effectively upheld PSD permitting requirements for GHG emissions under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for “anyway sources” and invalidated PSD permitting requirements for Step 2 sources.

    3See 134 S.Ct. 2427.

    In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued an amended judgment vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule.4 The amended judgment preserves, without the need for additional rulemaking by the EPA, the application of the BACT requirement to GHG emissions from sources that are required to obtain a PSD permit based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs (i.e., the “anyway” sources). The D.C. Circuit's judgment vacated the regulations at issue in the litigation, including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v), “to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase from a modification.” 5

    4Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 09-1322, 06/26/20, judgment entered for No. 09-1322 on 04/10/2015.

    5Id.

    EPA may need to take additional steps to revise federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court decision and recent D.C. Circuit judgment. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs. EPA is not expecting states to have revised their existing PSD program regulations at this juncture. However, EPA is evaluating PSD program submissions to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with both decisions.

    Virginia's currently approved PSD SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT when sources emit or increase GHGs in the amount of 75,000 tpy, measured as CO2e. Although Virginia's SIP may also currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the D.C. Circuit's judgment or the Supreme Court decision, this does not prevent the EPA from approving the submission addressed in this rule. Virginia's May 12, 2014 SIP submission does not add any GHG permitting requirements that are inconsistent with either decision.

    Likewise, the GHG PAL provisions included in Virginia's May 12, 2014 submittal include some provisions that may no longer be appropriate in light of both the D.C. Circuit judgment and the Supreme Court decision. Since the Supreme Court has determined that sources and modifications may not be defined as “major” solely on the basis of the level of GHGs emitted or increased, PALs for GHGs may no longer have value in some situations where a source might have triggered PSD based on GHG emissions alone. However, PALs for GHGs may still have a role to play in determining whether a modification that triggers PSD for a pollutant other than GHGs should also be subject to BACT for GHGs. These provisions, like the other GHG provisions discussed previously, may be revised at some future time. However, these provisions do not add new requirements for sources or modifications that only emit or increase GHGs above the major source threshold or the 75,000 tpy GHG level in § 52.21(b)(49)(iv). Rather, the PAL provisions provide increased flexibility to sources that wish to address their GHG emissions in a PAL. Since this flexibility may still be valuable to sources in at least one context described above, EPA believes that it is appropriate to approve these provisions into the Virginia SIP at this juncture.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The proposed revision includes amendments to 9VAC5-85: “Permits for Stationary Sources of Pollutants Subject to Regulation.” Specifically, 9VAC5-85-40: “Prevention of Significant Deterioration Area Permit Actions,” and 9VAC5-85-50: “Definitions” are being amended. Additionally, 9VAC5-85-55: “Actual plantwide applicability limits,” is being added to the SIP. The proposed amendments are consistent with the GHG PAL provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 as promulgated by EPA on July 12, 2012. See 77 FR 41072-41075.

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of this material indicates the proposed SIP revision is consistent with the CAA and the Federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA is proposing to approve Virginia's May 12, 2014 submittal as a revision to the Virginia SIP, in accordance with CAA section 110. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Virginia's GHG PAL regulations, as discussed in section II of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    V. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1 1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.

    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1 1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”

    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1 1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 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 proposed action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

    • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; 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, this proposed rule, relating to Virginia's PSD program, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13804 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    80 108 Friday, June 5, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0006] Hot Water Treatment of Oversized Mangoes; Correction AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; Correction.

    SUMMARY:

    We are correcting an error in a notice announcing the availability of a revision to hot water treatment schedule T102-a to treat additional mango commodities. The notice was published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Inder P.S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager-Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In a notice 1 published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2015 (80 FR 22702-22703, Docket No. APHIS-2015-0006), we amended hot water treatment schedule T102-a in the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual to extend the applicability of the treatment to additional mango (Mangifera indica) commodities.

    1 To view the notice and related documents, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0006.

    In the notice, we stated that that the T102-a treatment schedule of 110-minute fruit immersion in a constant 70 °F (41.6 °C) hot-water bath is an efficacious phytosanitary treatment for eggs and larvae of Ceratitis capitata and Anastrepha spp. fruit flies in mangoes weighing 651 to 900 grams. The temperature should read 115 °F (46.1 °C).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of June 2015. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13780 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Tri County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Tri County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Deer Lodge, Montana. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/bdnf/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held June 24, 2015, from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at USDA Service Center, 1002 Hollenbeck Lane, Deer Lodge, Montana.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at 420 Barrett Street, Dillon, Montana. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patty Bates, RAC Coordinator by phone at (406) 683-3979 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend projects for Title II funding.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 19, 2015 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Patty Bates, RAC Coordinator, 420 Barrett Street, Dillon, MT 59749; or by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to (406) 683-3844.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: June 1, 2015. Melany Glossa, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13762 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Rico West Dolores Roads and Trails Project (Travel Management); Dolores District of the San Juan National Forest; Colorado AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Forest Service intends to prepare an environmental impact statement to analyze and disclose the environmental effects of adjustments to the road and trail system in the Rico West Dolores area. A project-level amendment to the San Juan Land and Resource Management Plan is also proposed. The analysis area is in Dolores and Montezuma Counties approximately 5 miles north of the Town of Dolores and includes National Forest Lands surrounding the Town of Rico.

    DATES:

    If you have supplementary comments which meet the description in Scoping Process, below, they must be received by July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    If you have supplementary comments which meet the description in Scoping Process, below, submit them in writing to Derek Padilla, District Ranger, Dolores Ranger District, 29211 Highway 184, Dolores, CO 81323; comments may also be emailed to [email protected] or sent by facsimile to 970-882-6841. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Deborah Kill, NEPA Coordinator and Interdisciplinary Team Leader, telephone 970-882-7296. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Previous Scoping Period

    A previous scoping period, including public input occurred from December 12th 2014 through January 30th 2015. That scoping period met the requirement for scoping for the Environmental Impact Statement. Written comments that were submitted during the previous scoping period are considered and filed in the project record. The Forest Service requests that you do not resubmit the same comments. Because of extensive public input, the scope of issues to be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement has already been well examined.

    This notice of intent initiates a supplementary scoping process, which is intended to provide an additional opportunity for the public to comment on the scope of issues to be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement only if there is new or different information that has not been previously considered. To determine whether your comment or concern has previously been submitted, please read the Scoping Report found on the project Web page at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44918 or call Deborah Kill at 970-882-6822.

    Proposed Action

    The Proposed Action document and maps located at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44918 describes proposed actions in detail. There has been no change to the proposals since this Proposed Action document was published for the first scoping period in December, except that additional language has been added to the Purpose and Need statement below to add clarification. Briefly, the proposals include (1) minor adjustments to the main graveled roads, (2) re-configuration of some native surface roads which includes converting some native surface roads to ATV trails, (3) setting limits for day-use and overnight parking off of the roads, (4) changing to the type of uses allowed on some of the single track trails, (5) new timing restrictions on motorcycle use of single track trails, (6) re-alignment of single track trails at select locations, and (7) additional single track trails added to the system. As stated in the Proposed Action document, it will be necessary to adjust the Forest Plan's Over-Ground Travel Suitability Map and the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Map and these Forest Plan changes would apply only to the Rico-West Dolores analysis area.

    Purpose and Need

    The purpose of the Proposed Action is to manage over-ground wheeled motorized vehicle use in accordance with the requirements of the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212). The Rule requires the Forest Service to designate a system of roads, trails, and areas for motorized use by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year. The travel rule at 36 CFR 212.55 also lists criteria for designation of roads, trails and areas as follows, (a) General criteria for designation of National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands. In designating National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands for motor vehicle use, the responsible official shall consider effects on National Forest System natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision of recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands, the need for maintenance and administration of roads, trails, and areas that would arise if the uses under consideration are designated; and the availability of resources for that maintenance and administration. (b) Specific criteria for designation of trails and areas. In addition to the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, in designating National Forest System trails and areas on National Forest System lands, the responsible official shall consider effects on the following, with the objective of minimizing: (1) Damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources; (2) Harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats; (3) Conflicts between motor vehicle use and existing or proposed recreational uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands; and (4) Conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of National Forest System lands or neighboring Federal lands. In addition, the responsible official shall consider: (5) Compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account sound, emissions, and other factors.

    The purpose of this action is to balance the current and future recreational desires of the public with Forest Service responsibilities for wildlife and fisheries management, water resources management, and forest management as well as the desires of local communities and affected private land owners. This action is needed to develop a sustainable system of trails and roads where motorized travel is appropriate and will strive to improve both the motorized and non-motorized user's experience.

    Decision To Be Made

    The decision to be made is whether to implement the proposed action, or to meet the purpose and need for action through some other combination of activities, or to take no action at this time.

    Dates

    Another opportunity for public comment will occur when the Draft Environmental Impact Statement describing alternatives in detail will be made available for public comment later in 2015. At that time, public comments on the draft EIS will be received for 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register. A draft decision is expected in late 2015.

    Administrative Review Processes

    For project-level decisions about the road and trail system, the Forest Service will apply its pre-decisional administrative review process described in 36 CFR part 218, subparts A and B. Preliminary project-level decisions about the road and trail system will be described in a draft Record of Decision.

    The proposed forest plan amendment, if selected, will be subject to 1982 Planning Rule regulations 219.17(f) which state that `If the change resulting from the amendment is determined not to be significant for the purposes of the planning process, the Forest Supervisor may implement the amendment following appropriate public notification and satisfactory completion of NEPA procedures.'

    The Forest Service will apply the pre-decisional objection process at 36 CFR 219 subpart B to the Forest Plan amendment.

    Responsible Official and Lead Agency

    The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal. District Ranger Derek Padilla is the responsible official for project decisions while Kara Chadwick, Forest Supervisor is the responsible official for the Forest Plan amendment.

    Dated: May 29, 2015. Derek Padilla, Dolores District Ranger.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13761 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census [Docket Number 150519465-5465-01] Streamlining Summary Level 070 Tables in the 5-Year American Community Survey AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) collects detailed demographic, social, economic, and housing data from about 3.5 million addresses in the United States and 36,000 in Puerto Rico each year. Annual data products are released in the form of 1-Year and 5-Year estimates with 5-Year estimates being produced for over 578,000 geographies by 87 different summary levels. Most summary levels and their corresponding geographies are then produced for approximately 1,000 detailed tables. As a cost-saving measure and to improve usability of the estimates, the Census Bureau is reviewing the data products released by the ACS for usefulness and necessity. Beginning with the 2010-2014 ACS 5-Year estimates, the Census Bureau plans to streamline the production and release of Summary Level 070 tables (state/county/county subdivision/place remainder (or part)) to 15 tables. This very small summary level was created to allow for the delineation of metropolitan, micropolitan, and related statistical areas by the Office of Budget and Management (OMB). The Census Bureau recommends only tabulating and releasing those 15 tables for Summary Level 070 that are necessary for the delineation of metropolitan, micropolitan, and related statistical areas (particularly for identification of New England City and Town Area principal cities), commuting analysis, and basic demographic and housing analysis.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be received by July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to KaNin Reese, Rm. 7H176F, U.S. Census Bureau, Social, Economic and Housing Statistics Division, Washington, DC 20233 or via email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    KaNin Reese, Rm. 7H176F, U.S. Census Bureau, Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division, Washington, DC 20233, by phone at 301-763-3493 or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Beginning with the 2010-2014 ACS 5-Year tables, the Census Bureau plans to streamline the production and release of Summary Level 070 tables (state/county/county subdivision/place remainder (or part)) to the 15 tables necessary for the delineation of metropolitan, micropolitan, and related statistical areas (particularly for identification of New England City and Town Area principal cities) by the Office of Budget and Management (OMB), for other commuting analysis, and for basic demographic and housing analysis. The Census Bureau conducts the ACS program under 13 U.S.C. Sections 141 and 193. In our latest release, this summary level was produced for 69,939 unique geographies with approximately 70 percent of all estimates produced as zero since place parts in the county subdivision represent very small areas. In addition to the data quality of these small geographies, the user statistics show that these tables are not widely accessed by data users.

    Since the ACS was created as the replacement for the Census long-form, the ACS began by producing the same summary levels that were produced in Census 2000. The purpose of Summary Level 070 (state/county/county subdivision/place remainder (or part)) is for the delineation of metropolitan, micropolitan, and related statistical areas (particularly for identification of New England City and Town Area principal cities) under OMB standards. However, not all 1,000 detailed tables being produced for this summary level are needed for delineation. The Census Bureau has identified ten commuting tables necessary for the delineation process and for other commuting analysis, and five basic demographic and housing tables necessary for the production and release of the summary level.

    The 15 tables to remain for Summary Level 070 include:

    1. B01001—Sex by Age 2. B01003—Total Population 3. B02001—Race 4. B08007—Sex of Workers by Place of Work—State and County Level 5. B08008—Sex of Workers by Place of Work—Place Level 6. B08009—Sex of Workers by Place of Work—Minor Civil Division Level for 12 Selected States (CT, ME, MA, MI, MN, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, WI) 7. B08301—Means of Transportation to Work 8. B08302—Time Leaving Home to Go to Work 9. B08303—Travel Time to Work 10. B08601—Means of Transportation to Work for Workplace Geography 11. B08602—Time Arriving at Work from Home for Workplace Geography 12. B08603—Travel Time to Work for Workplace Geography 13. B08604—Worker Population for Workplace Geography 14. B25001—Housing Units 15. B25003—Tenure

    The Census Bureau has been reviewing and documenting the utility of releasing Summary Level 070 by all 1,000 tables for several years. Not only is the data quality insufficient for many of the individual geographies, but very few data users are accessing the tables on American Factfinder or our summary files on our FTP site. Further, we have an increasing concern that some data users may be using the summary level incorrectly, mistaking these place parts in the county subdivision for the place-level geographies.

    By releasing only a few key demographic, social, and housing tables for this summary level, we believe we are still maintaining the true purpose and integrity of the summary level while eliminating a great deal of additional resources needed for the full production of the product. Streamlining the tables in this summary level will save the Census Bureau almost $100,000 over a 5-year period. If data users believe that additional tables are necessary for this summary level, we welcome those suggestions.

    Specifically, comments are invited on: (a) Whether Summary Level 070 (state/county/county subdivision/place remainder (or part)) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) whether the 15 tables planned for release are sufficient for data user needs for these geographies; and (c) if there are additional tables beyond the 15 listed for Summary Level 070 that are necessary for the 5-Year release.

    Dated: May 29, 2015. John H. Thompson, Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13771 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-9-2015] Authorization of Production Activity, Foreign-Trade Zone 134, Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC, (Passenger Motor Vehicles), Chattanooga, Tennessee

    On January 23, 2015, the Chattanooga Chamber Foundation, grantee of FTZ 134, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC, within FTZ 134, in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (80 FR 9693-9694, 2-24-2015). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: May 26, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13813 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-36-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 122—Corpus Christi, Texas, Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Voestalpine Texas, LLC, (Hot Briquetted Iron), Portland, Texas

    The Port of Corpus Christi Authority, grantee of FTZ 122, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of voestalpine Texas, LLC (voestalpine), located in Portland, Texas. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on May 22, 2015.

    The voestalpine facility is located within Subzone 122T in Portland, Texas. The facility is currently under construction and will be used for the production of hot briquetted iron using foreign-sourced iron ore pellets. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and specific finished product described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt voestalpine from customs duty payments on the foreign-status iron ore pellets (duty free) used in export production. On its domestic sales, voestalpine would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to the hot briquetted iron (duty free) for the foreign-status iron ore pellets. The submission indicates that most of the plant's output will be exported. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 15, 2015.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: May 29, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13812 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-848] Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain stilbenic optical brightening agents (OBAs) from Taiwan. The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2013, through April 30, 2014. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Teh Fong Ming International Co., Ltd. (TFM). We preliminarily find that TFM has sold subject merchandise at less than normal value. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 5, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Catherine Cartsos or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1757, and (202) 482-1690, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the Order1 is OBAs and is currently classifiable under subheadings 3204.20.8000, 2933.69.6050, 2921.59.4000 and 2921.59.8090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). While the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.2

    1See Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents From Taiwan: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 27419 (May 10, 2012) (Order).

    2 A full description of the scope of the Order is contained in the memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Stilbenic Optical Brightening Agents from Taiwan: Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an Appendix to this notice.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.71 percent exists for TFM for the period May 1, 2013, through April 30, 2014.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.3 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.4

    3See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    4See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2) and 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS which is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. An electronically filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.5 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.

    5See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine and CBP shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. If TFM's weighted-average dumping margin continues to be above de minimis in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If TFM's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, we will instruct CBP not to assess duties on any of its entries in accordance with the Final Modification for Reviews, i.e., “{w}here the weighted-average margin of dumping for the exporter is determined to be zero or de minimis, no antidumping duties will be assessed.” 6

    6See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102 (February 14, 2012).

    For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by TFM for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.7

    7 For a full discussion, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of OBAs from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for TFM will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the manufacturer of the merchandise for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 6.19 percent.8 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    8 The all-others rate established in the Order.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

    Dated: May 29, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix

    List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Discussion of the Methodology Comparisons to Normal Value A. Determination of Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis Product Comparisons Date of Sale Constructed Export Price Normal Value A. Home Market Viability and Comparison Market B. Level of Trade C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Currency Conversion Recommendation [FR Doc. 2015-13811 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-964] Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On December 1, 2014, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published its Preliminary Results of the 2012-2013 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless refined copper pipe and tube (“copper pipe”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).1 The period of review (“POR”) is November 1, 2012 through October 31, 2013. We invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to our margin calculations for the mandatory respondent Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc., Hong Kong GD Trading Co., Ltd., and Golden Dragon Holding (Hong Kong) International, Ltd. (collectively, “Golden Dragon”). The final weighted-average dumping margins for this review are listed in the “Final Results” section below.

    1See Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 71089 (December 1, 2014) (“Preliminary Results”).

    DATES:

    Effective date: June 5, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Martinelli, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2923.

    Background

    On December 1, 2014, the Department published its Preliminary Results. On January 7, 2015, and January 12, 2015, Cerro Flow Products, LLC, Wieland Copper Products, LLC, Mueller Copper Tube Products Inc., and Mueller Copper Tube Company, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”), and Golden Dragon submitted case briefs and rebuttal briefs, respectively.2 On February 11, 2015, the Department held a public hearing on the final results of this proceeding in the Herbert Clark Hoover Building.3 On March 25, 2015, the Department extended the time period for issuing the final results of this review by 30 days, until April 30, 2015.4 On April 28, 2015, the Department extended the time period for issuing the final results of this review by an additional 30 days, until May 30, 2015.5

    2See Letter from Petitioners, “Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China: Petitioners' Case Brief,” (January 7, 2015); see also Letter from Golden Dragon, “Case Brief; Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from China,” (January 7, 2015); see also Letter from Petitioners, “Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China: Petitioners' Rebuttal Brief,” (January 12, 2015); see also Letter from Golden Dragon, “Rebuttal Brief; Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from China,” (January 12, 2015).

    3See Enforcement and Compliance Public Hearing in the Matter of: Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube Third Administrative Review, Before: Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office IV, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, (February 11, 2015).

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, through Howard Smith, Acting Office Director, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Office IV, from James Martinelli, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Office IV “Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review” (March 25, 2015).

    5See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, through Howard Smith, Acting Office Director, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Office IV, from James Martinelli, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Office IV “Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review” (April 28, 2015). Because May 30, 2015 is a non-business day, the deadline is the next business day, June 1, 2015.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is seamless refined copper pipe and tube. The product is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item numbers 7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090. Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS item numbers 7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order remains dispositive.6

    6 For a complete description of the scope of this order, see Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, regarding “Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2012-2013 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Seamless Refined Copper Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China” (“Decision Memorandum”) dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    Withdrawals of Administrative Review Requests

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department rescinded this administrative review with regard to Luvata Tube (Zhongshan) Ltd. & Luvata Alltop (Zhongshan) Ltd. (collectively, “Luvata”), Shanghai Hailiang Copper Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd., as parties timely withdrew all review requests with respect to these companies, which all had a separate rate from a prior completed segment of this proceeding.7

    7See Preliminary Results at 71090.

    Reviews were also requested for 11 additional companies listed in the Initiation Notice, and those requests were also timely withdrawn.8 However, for the final results, we are not rescinding the reviews for these 11 companies because they did not have a separate rate at the time of initiation of this review, and, therefore, each company will remain part of the PRC-wide entity. The PRC-wide entity is currently subject to this administrative review.9

    8See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 78 FR 79392 (December 30, 2013) (“Initiation Notice”). The 11 companies include: China Hailiang Metal Trading, Foshan Hua Hong Copper Tube Co., Ltd., Guilin Lijia Metals Co., Ltd., Hong Kong Hailiang Metal, Ningbo Jintian Copper Tube Co., Ltd., Shanghai Hailiang Metal Trading Limited, Sinochem Ningbo Ltd. & Sinochem Ningbo Import & Export Co., Ltd., Taicang City Jinxin Copper Tube Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jiahe Pipes Inc., and Zhejiang Naile Copper Co., Ltd. These companies are not included in the collapsed entity of Hong Kong Hailiang Metal Trading Limited, Zhejiang Hailiang Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Hailiang Copper Co., Ltd.

    9See, e.g., Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 47363, 47365 (August 8, 2012), unchanged in Narrow Woven Ribbons With Woven Selvedge From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010-2011, 78 FR 10130 (February 13, 2013). A change in practice with respect to the conditional review of the PRC-wide entity is not applicable to this administrative review. See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65964, 65969-70 (November 4, 2013) (apply the change in practice to reviews for which the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review is published on or after December 4, 2013).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made revisions to the margin calculations for Golden Dragon.10 We made the following changes to the margin calculation for Golden Dragon.

    10See Decision Memorandum.

    • We included Golden Dragon's recycled copper, which is reintroduced into the production process, in the calculation of the copper consumption rate. We also gave Golden Dragon a by-product offset for the reintroduced copper.11

    11Id. at Comments 3 and 4.

    • We revised the calculation for the truck freight calculation using factual information available on the record.12

    12Id. at Comment 6.

    • We removed import data from outside of the POR that was inadvertently included.13

    13Id. at Comment 7.

    Final Results

    We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Golden Dragon Precise Copper Tube Group, Inc., Hong Kong GD Trading Co., Ltd., and Golden Dragon Holding (Hong Kong) International, Ltd 10.50 PRC-Wide Entity 14 60.85
    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.

    14 The PRC-Wide Entity includes, inter alia, Shanghai Hailiang Metal Trading Limited, Hong Kong Hailiang Metal, China Hailiang Metal Trading, Foshan Hua Hong Copper Tube Co., Ltd., Guilin Lijia Metals Co., Ltd., Sinochem Ningbo Import & Export Co., Ltd., Sinochem Ningbo Ltd., Taicang City Jinxin Copper Tube Co., Ltd., Ningbo Jintian Copper Tube Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Jiahe Pipes Inc., and Zhejiang Naile Copper Co., Ltd.

    For Golden Dragon, the Department calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those sales. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate is not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent). Where an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

    For the PRC-wide entity, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries as an assessment rate for antidumping duties equal to the weighted-average dumping margin listed above in the Final Results section.

    The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the rate for the NME-wide entity. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the rate for the NME-wide entity.15

    15 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters identified above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to their weighted-average dumping margin in these final results of review; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that received a separate rate in a previously completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 60.85 percent); and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed regarding these final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notifications to All Parties

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 29, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether the Department Properly Adjusted for VAT Comment 2: Whether the Department Properly Applied Its Differential Pricing Analysis Comment 3: Whether Golden Dragon Accurately Reported Its Copper Consumption Rate Comment 4: Whether Golden Dragon Is Entitled to a By-Product Offset Comment 5: Whether the Department Accurately Calculated Credit Expenses Comment 6: Whether the Department Accurately Calculated the Truck Surrogate Value Comment 7: Whether the Department Accurately Calculated the Solvents Surrogate Value Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-13809 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-832] Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT” or “Court”) sustained the Final Remand Results 1 issued by the Department of Commerce (“Department”) concerning the 2009-2010 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China.2 In the Final Remand Results, the Department changed the data source for inland freight and selected different financial statements for the calculation of the surrogate financial ratios, while it continued to find that the untimely and thus previously rejected factual information was irrelevant and showed no “fraud” on the part of the respondent, Tianjin Magnesium International Co., Ltd. (“TMI”).

    1See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Court Order No. 12-00006, Slip Op. 13-9 (CIT 2013), dated January 22, 2013 (“Final Remand Results”).

    2See US Magnesium LLC v. United States, Court Order No. 12-00006, Slip Op. 15-47 (CIT May 21, 2015) (“TMI II”).

    Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in Timken, 3 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 4 the Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pure magnesium from the People's Republic of China covering the period of review (“POR”) from May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010.5

    3See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Timken”).

    4See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Diamond Sawblades”).

    5See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 76945 (December 9, 2011) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Final Results”).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: May 31, 2015

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eve Wang, AD/CVD Operations Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6231.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On December 9, 2011, the Department issued the Final Results. 6 US Magnesium LLC (“USM”) challenged certain aspects of the Department's Final Results. On January 22, 2013, the Court remanded the Final Results to the Department: (1) To consider whether previously rejected factual information contained prima facie evidence of fraud by TMI in accordance with the factors outlined in Home Products, 7 and (2) to explain its rationale for selecting Infobanc data based on substantial evidence on the record or, alternatively, to select a new surrogate value for truck freight.8 Additionally, the Department requested a voluntary remand to reconsider: (1) The selection of Hindalco Industries Limited's (“Hindalco”) financial statements for calculating surrogate financial ratios, and (2) USM's claim that the Department made errors when calculating the surrogate value for labor.9

    6See Final Results.

    7See Home Prods. Int'l v. United States, 633 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Home Products”).

    8See US Magnesium LLC v. United States, Court Order No. 12-00006, Slip Op. 13-9 (CIT January 22, 2013) (“TMI I”).

    9Id.

    In accordance with TMI I, the Department opened the administrative record to accept the previously rejected factual information and concluded that this factual information did not demonstrate prima facie evidence of fraud by TMI.10 The Department also determined that the Infobanc data did not constitute the best information available to value truck freight and, instead, selected World Bank data for the Final Remand Results.11 Additionally, the Department selected Madras Aluminum Company's financial statements to value the surrogate financial ratios. Lastly, the Department corrected errors in its calculation of the labor rate.12 On May 21, 2015, the Court entered judgement sustaining the Final Remand Results entirely.

    10See Final Remand Results.

    11Id.

    12Id.

    Timken Notice

    In Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The Court's judgment in TMI II sustaining the Final Remand Results constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken.

    Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the Final Results with respect to the surrogate value for truck freight and financial ratios, in addition to correcting the errors in its calculation of the labor rate. The revised weighted-average dumping margin for TMI during the period May 1, 2009, through April 30, 2010, is as follows:

    Weighted-Average Dumping Margin: Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin (percent)
  • TMI 51.26

    Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise exported by the above listed exporter at the rate listed above.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Since the Final Remand Results, the Department has established a new cash deposit rate for TMI.13 Therefore, the cash deposit rate for TMI does not need to be updated as a result of these amended final results.

    13See Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 94 (January 2, 2014); Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 26541 (May 8, 2015).

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 29, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13828 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-489-501] Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    In response to a request by interested parties,1 the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel standard pipe and tube products (welded pipe and tube) from Turkey.2 The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2013, to April 30, 2014. This review covers the following companies: Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S., and Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (collectively “Borusan”); ERBOSAN Erciyas Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Erbosan); Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S. (Toscelik) and Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. (Tosyali) (collectively “Toscelik”).3 The Department preliminarily determines that Borusan and Toscelik both made U.S. sales of subject merchandise below normal value. In addition, the Department preliminarily finds that Erbosan had no shipments. The preliminary results are listed below in the section titled “Preliminary Results of Review.”

    1 Wheatland Tube Company, Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret requested the instant administrative review.

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 36462 (June 27, 2014) (Initiation Notice). The Initiation Notice inadvertently referenced the incorrect order title. This Federal Register notice and the decision memorandum accompanying these preliminary results use the original and correct order title, as reflected in the original 1986 order. See Antidumping Duty Order; Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey, 51 FR 17784 (May 15, 1986).

    3 In prior segments of this proceeding, we treated Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. as the same legal entity. See, e.g., Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2013, 79 FR 71087, 71088 (December 1, 2014). We preliminarily determine that there is no evidence on the record for altering such treatment of these two parties, referred to collectively as Borusan. Similarly, in prior segments of this proceeding we treated Toscelik and Tosyali as the same legal entity. See, e.g., id. There is also no record evidence for altering this treatment. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we are treating Toscelik and Tosyali as the same legal entity.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 5, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Baker, Deborah Scott, or Robert James at (202) 482-2924, (202) 482-2657, or (202) 482-0649, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is welded pipe and tube. The welded pipe and tube subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheading 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey; 2013-2014 Administrative Review” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    Methodology

    The Department has conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as the Appendix to this notice.

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    On July 15, 2014, Erbosan submitted a letter certifying that it had no exports, sales, or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and that it did not know or have reason to know that any of its customers would subsequently export or sell subject merchandise exported by Erbosan to the United States. On August 22, 2014, the Department issued a “No Shipment Inquiry” to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to confirm that there were no entries of welded pipe and tube from Turkey exported by Erbosan during the POR. In response, CBP communicated to the Department that its data indicated that subject merchandise exported by Erbosan may have entered the United States during the POR. Therefore, we obtained U.S. entry documents for these shipments, and upon analysis conclude that the record does not support finding that Erbosan had knowledge that the destination for these shipments was the United States.4 The Department also requested clarification from Erbosan regarding these shipments, and Erbosan again confirmed that during the POR, it did not export subject merchandise to any customer in the United States or to any customer outside the United States knowing the final destination was the United States. Erbosan also certified that it did not sell subject merchandise to any domestic customer which purchased the subject merchandise for export to the United States, nor did it have knowledge that any of its customers would subsequently export or sell Erbosan's subject merchandise to the United States. As previously noted, we have found nothing in the U.S. entry documents or elsewhere on the record that contradicts these claims.

    4See Memorandum to the File from Fred Baker, “U.S. Entry Documents—Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey,” dated January 30, 2015.

    Based on Erbosan's certifications and our analysis of the other information on the record referenced above, we preliminarily determine that Erbosan had no shipments during the POR. However, consistent with our practice, the Department finds that it is not appropriate to rescind the review with respect to Erbosan, but rather to complete the review with respect to Erbosan, and to issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the weighted-average dumping margins for the period May 1, 2013 through April 30, 2014 are as follows:

    Producer or exporter Weighted-
  • Average
  • dumping
  • margin (percent)
  • Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S 5 3.16 Toscelik Profil ve Sac Endustrisi A.S 6 1.77 5 Also includes Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. See footnote 3. 6 Also includes Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. See footnote 3.
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.7 Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.8 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the due date for filing case briefs.9 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.10 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.11 In order to be properly filed, ACCESS must successfully receive an electronically-filed document in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time.

    7See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    8See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii).

    9See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    10See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    11See 19 CFR 351.303.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.12 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs.

    12See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    Unless otherwise extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

    If Borusan's or Toscelik's weighted-average dumping margins are not zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.5 percent) in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where either a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

    With respect to Erbosan, if we continue to find that Erbosan had no shipments of subject merchandise in the final results, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by Erbosan, but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.13

    13See, e.g., Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922, 26923 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989 (September 17, 2010).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Borusan and Toscelik will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is zero or de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for other manufacturers and exporters covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 14.74 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation.14 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    14See Antidumping Duty Order; Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products From Turkey, 51 FR 17784 (May 15, 1986).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 29, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments 5. Comparisons to Normal Value 6. Product Comparisons 7. Date of Sale 8. Export Price 9. Normal Value 10. Currency Conversion 11. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-13807 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-831] Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Intent To Rescind the New Shipper Review of Jinxiang Kaihua Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting a new shipper review of Jinxiang Kaihua Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. (Kaihua) regarding the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (“the PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) is November 1, 2013 through April 30, 2014. The Department has preliminarily determined that Kaihua's new shipper sale is not bona fide. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 5, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Milton Koch, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2584.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On August 7, 2014, the Department published notice of initiation of a new shipper review of fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China for the period November 1, 2013 through April 30, 2014.1 On December 15, 2014, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results to June 3, 2015.2

    1See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2013-2014, 79 FR 46250 (August 7, 2014).

    2See the Department Memorandum “Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,” dated December 12, 2014.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is all grades of garlic, whether whole or separated into constituent cloves.3 The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 0703.20.0000, 0703.20.0005, 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0015, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, 2005.90.9500, 2005.90.9700, and 2005.99.9700. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description is dispositive.

    3See the Department Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Jinxiang Kaihua Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), for a complete description of the Scope of the Order.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's centralized electronic service system (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Rescission of Kaihua

    For the reasons detailed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department preliminarily finds that Kaihua's sale under review is not bona fide, and therefore, does not provide a reasonable or reliable basis for calculating a dumping margin. The Department reached this conclusion based on the totality of the circumstances, including: (a) The atypical nature of Kaihua's price; (b) Kaihua's failure to demonstrate that it received payment for the sale; and (c) the atypical circumstances surrounding the sale. As result, the Department is preliminarily rescinding the new shipper review of Kaihua.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose the analysis performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit written comments by no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.4 Rebuttals, limited to issues raised in the written comments, may be filed by no later than five days after the written comments are filed.5

    4See 19 CFR 351.309(c).

    5See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.6 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.7

    6See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    7See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this new shipper review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 90 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the final results, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. If we proceed to a final rescission of the new shipper review, Kaihua's entries will be assessed at the rate entered.8 If we do not proceed to a final rescission of the new shipper review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. 9

    8See 19 CFR 351.212(c).

    9See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    Although the Department intends to rescind the new shipper review for Kaihua, the Department is currently conducting an administrative review for the POR November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014, which could include the entries subject to this new shipper review. Accordingly, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend entries during the period November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014, of subject merchandise exported by Kaihua until CBP receives instructions relating to the administrative review covering the period November 1, 2013, through October 31, 2014.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Effective upon publication of the final rescission or the final results of this NSR, we will instruct CBP to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise by Kaihua. If the Department proceeds to a final rescission of the new shipper review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the PRC-wide rate. If we issue final results of the new shipper review for Kaihua, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits, effective upon the publication of the final results, at the rates established therein.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    The Department is issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: May 29, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of the Methodology V. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-13805 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD947 International Trade Data System Test Concerning the Electronic Submission of Certain Data Required for Imports AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces a pilot test of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) involving the electronic submission of forms and/or data, related to importations of fish products regulated by NMFS, using the Partner Government Agency (PGA) Message Set and Document Imaging System (DIS) components of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and NMFS have developed a pilot plan to test and assess the electronic transmission of import data for tuna, swordfish and toothfish.

    The pilot test will involve using the ACE, the NMFS PGA Message Set, the DIS and the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) to transmit the data required for admissibility determinations for entries of tuna, swordfish and toothfish. ABI is the electronic data interchange that enables participants to file electronically required import data with CBP and transfers that data into ACE. Initially, under this test, NMFS PGA Message Set data may be submitted only for formal and informal consumption entries (entry types 01 and 11), filed at certain ports.

    DATES:

    The test will commence after July 1, 2015 and will continue until concluded by publication of a notice in the Federal Register ending the test. Participants should consult the following Web site to determine which ports are operational for the test and the date that they become operational:http://www.cbp.gov/document/guidance/list-aceitds-pga-message-set-pilot-ports. Comments will be accepted through the duration of the test.

    ADDRESSES:

    To submit comments concerning this test program, send an email to Josephine Baiamonte ([email protected]), Director, Business Transformation, ACE Business Office (ABO), Office of International Trade. In the subject line of an email, please use, “Comment on PGA Message Set Test FRN”.

    Any party seeking to participate in the PGA Message Set test should contact their client representative. Interested parties without an assigned client representative should submit an email to Steven Zaccaro at [email protected] with the subject heading “PGA Message Set Test FRN-Request to Participate”.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical questions related to the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or ABI transmissions, contact your assigned client representative. Interested parties without an assigned client representative should direct their questions to Steven Zaccaro at [email protected] For PGA related questions, contact Emi Wallace (CBP) at mailto:[email protected] and for NMFS related questions contact Dale Jones (NMFS) at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background I. The National Customs Automation Program (NCAP)

    NCAP was established in Subtitle B of Title VI—Customs Modernization, in the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, 2170, December 8, 1993) (Customs Modernization Act). See 19 U.S.C. 1411. Through NCAP, the initial thrust of customs modernization was on trade compliance and the development of ACE, the planned successor to the Automated Commercial System (ACS). ACE is an automated and electronic system for commercial trade processing which is intended to streamline business processes, facilitate growth in trade, ensure cargo security, and foster participation in global commerce, while ensuring compliance with U.S. laws and regulations and reducing costs for CBP and all of its communities of interest. The ability to meet these objectives depends on successfully modernizing CBP's business functions and the information technology that supports those functions.

    CBP's modernization efforts are accomplished through phased releases of ACE component functionality designed to replace a specific legacy ACS function. Each release will begin with a test and will end with mandatory use of the new ACE feature, thus retiring the legacy ACS function. Each release builds on previous releases and sets the foundation for subsequent releases. ABI allows participants to electronically file required import data with CBP and transfers that data into ACE.

    II. International Trade Data System

    This test is in furtherance of the ITDS, which is statutorily authorized by section 405 of the Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006, Public Law 109-347. The purpose of ITDS, as defined by section 4 of the SAFE Port Act of 2006, is to eliminate redundant information filing requirements, efficiently regulate the flow of commerce, and effectively enforce laws and regulations relating to international trade, by establishing a single portal system, operated by CBP, for the collection and distribution of standard electronic import and export data required by all participating Federal agencies.

    III. Partner Government Agency Message Set

    The PGA Message Set is the data needed to satisfy the PGA reporting requirements. For purposes of this test, the affected PGA is the NMFS. ACE enables the message set by acting as the “single window” for the submission of trade-related data required by the PGAs only once to CBP. This data must be submitted at any time prior to the arrival of the merchandise on the conveyance transporting the cargo to the United States as part of an ACE Entry/Cargo Release or Entry Summary. The data will be validated and made available to the relevant PGAs involved in import, export, and transportation-related decision making. The data will be used to fulfill merchandise entry and entry summary requirements and will allow for earlier release decisions and more certainty for the importer in determining the logistics of cargo delivery. Also, by virtue of being electronic, the PGA Message Set will eliminate the necessity for the submission and subsequent handling of paper documents. All PGA Message Set participants are required to use a software program that has completed ACE certification testing for the PGA Message Set.

    Alternatively, test participants may transmit required PGA data using the DIS as ACE is ready to receive imaged copies of NMFS forms and documents through the DIS. For information regarding the use of DIS, and for a list of PGA forms and documents which may be transmitted to ACE using DIS, please see http://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/features. At this time, ACE is prepared to accept certain PGA data elements for NMFS for type “01” (consumption) and type “11” (informal) commercial entries filed at specified ports. CBP plans on expanding to include Type “02” (quota) entries in the near future.

    The PGA data elements comprising the test are generally those found in the current paper forms (NOAA Form 370, Bluefin Tuna Catch Document, Swordfish Statistical Document, Bigeye Statistical Document, Dissostichus Catch Document, and the associated re-export certificates, if any), which are currently handled via fax, email, and/or paper communication with NMFS. These data elements are set forth in the supplemental Customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements (CATAIR) guidelines for NMFS. These technical specifications, including the CATAIR chapters can be found at the following link: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/catair.

    Upon commencement of this test, a limited number of ports will be accepting PGA Message Set data and DIS documents and forms. A list of those ports and the date they become operational is provided on the following Web site: http://www.cbp.gov/document/guidance/list-aceitds-pga-message-set-pilot-ports. CBP may expand to additional ports in the future. Test participants and interested parties should consult the above-referenced Web site for changes/additions to the list of ports where NMFS data and DIS forms and documents may be sent.

    IV. The National Marine Fisheries Service Test

    This ITDS test is in furtherance of key CBP ITDS initiatives as provided in SAFE Port Act of 2006. The goal is to establish ACE as the “single window” for the Government and trade community by automating and enhancing the interaction between international trade partners, CBP, and PGAs by facilitating electronic collection, processing, sharing, and review of trade data and documents required by Federal agencies during the cargo import and export process. Processing trade data through ITDS and ACE will significantly increase efficiency and reduce costs over the manual, paper-based interactions that are currently in place. The PGA Message Set and DIS will improve communication between NMFS and entry filers regarding imports and, for eligible entries, will allow test participants to submit the required data once rather than submitting data separately to CBP and NMFS, resulting in quicker processing. During this test, participants will collaborate with CBP and NMFS to examine the effectiveness of the “single window” capability.

    NMFS programmatic requirements are separated into three different programs: the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Program which includes various tunas and swordfish, the Antarctic Marine Living Resources (AMLR) program which covers fresh and frozen toothfish (Dissostichus species), and the NOAA Tuna Tracking and Verification Program (NOAA Form 370) which covers a variety of canned, frozen, pouched and other processed tuna but not fresh tuna. Under this test, NMFS required data will be transmitted electronically through ACE utilizing the PGA Message Set and DIS for any merchandise or combination thereof covered by any of these programs.

    For approved participants, the pilot test may include all modes of transport at the selected port(s), and all commodities regulated under the three NMFS import monitoring programs when imported at one of the selected ports. The import filing process for the NMFS will require the submission of specifically designated data/information. Both the designated Partner Government Agency (PGA) Message Set and the Document Imaging System (DIS) will be utilized to collect the specified information that is required by NMFS.

    The PGA Message Set data will be submitted to the CBP Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system through the use of ABI at the time of the filing in addition to the CBP required import Entry or Entry Summary data. Scanned copies of specific documents required will be submitted at the time of filing to the CBP DIS, either through uploading the file copies to the ABI system or by sending them to the DIS as email attachments.

    Examples of the kind of data that will be submitted as part of the PGA Message set are; the importer's permit number, a code for the ocean area of the harvest, a code for the type of gear used to harvest the fish or the code providing the country of registry for the fishing vessel that harvested the product. Examples of the types of scanned images that will be submitted to the DIS are; the international statistical documents pertaining to the harvest, re-export documents for product imported and re-exported from another country before shipment to the United States, or other specific and required catch/harvest documentation pertaining to the product being imported.

    For information regarding merchandise regulated by NMFS and data, information, forms and documents required by NMFS, see the implementation guidelines for the NMFS at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/NMFS%20PGA%20Message%20Set%20Guidlines.pdf.

    V. Test Participation Criteria and Participation Procedure

    Any party seeking to participate in this test must provide CBP, in their request to participate, their filer code and the port(s) at which they are interested in filing the appropriate PGA Message Set and DIS information. Requests to participate in this test will be accepted throughout the duration of the test. To be eligible to apply for this pilot, the applicant must be a self-filing importer who has the ability to file ACE Entry Summaries certified for cargo release and ACE cargo release or a broker who has the ability to file ACE Entry Summaries certified for cargo release and ACE cargo release; and the applicant files entries for NMFS commodities that are the subject of this test. All PGA Message Set participants are required to use a software program that has completed ACE certification testing for the PGA Message Set. At this time, PGA Message Set data and DIS submissions may be submitted only for “01”, and “11” type entries filed at certain ports. CBP plans on expanding to include Type “02” entries in the near future. Test participants should contact their client representative regarding the expansion to additional entry types (See ADDRESSES). A current listing of the participating ports and the date each port becomes operational for the test may be found on the designated Web site (See DATES).

    VI. Anticipated Process Changes

    The current paper process for the NMFS-NOAA 370 Program, Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Program and the Antarctic Marine Living Resources (AMLR) Program will be replaced by a the submittal of data and scanned document images through a combination of the PGA Message Set and DIS. This test covers communication and coordination among the agencies and the filers for the importation of these fisheries products. The agencies will also be testing new operational processes in real time with actual ACE filings in the production environment that include test messages of errors in filing and release status updates to the port and to the filer. Entry data submissions will be subject to validation edits and any applicable PGA business rules programmed into ACE. Once entry data has cleared the initial stage of validation edits and PGA business rules, the filer will receive messages, automatically generated or manually initiated by NMFS, thus keeping the filer informed as to the status of the shipment from the time of entry data submission until the time of release. Once all of the PGAs have concluded their review of the shipment and have unset any remaining holds, CBP will send a one U.S. Government release message to the filer to indicate that the filer has fulfilled all U.S. Government filing requirements for the shipment.

    VII. Confidentiality

    All data submitted and entered into ACE is subject to the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905) and is considered confidential, except to the extent as otherwise provided by law. As stated in previous notices, participation in this or any of the previous ACE tests is not confidential and upon a written Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, a name(s) of an approved participant(s) will be disclosed by CBP in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Authority:

    19 U.S.C. 1411.

    Dated: June 2, 2015. John Henderschedt, Director, Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13767 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD981 Vessel Monitoring System, Enhanced Mobile Transceiver Unit Type-Approvals AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides notice that three enhanced mobile transceiver units (EMTU) that were previously approved for use to comply with vessel monitoring system (VMS) requirements in United States federal fisheries are no longer approved for use. This document also provides a link to the continually updated, online list of NOAA Fisheries Service Type-Approved VMS Units.

    ADDRESSES:

    To obtain copies of the list of NMFS-approved VMS mobile transmitting units and NMFS-approved VMS communications service providers (including specifications), please go to: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/about/our_programs/vessel_monitoring.html, and click on the “Approved VMS Units” link.

    You may also contact the VMS Support Center at phone (888) 219-9228, fax (301) 427-0049, or write to NMFS Office for Law Enforcement (OLE), VMS, 1315 East West Highway, Suite 3301, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The public may acquire this notice and relevant updates by calling the VMS support center, email: [email protected], phone (888) 219-9228, fax (301) 427-0049. For questions regarding the status of VMS provider evaluations, contact Kelly Spalding, VMS Management Analyst, phone (301) 427-2300; fax (301) 427-0049.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In December 2014, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published in the Federal Register a final regulation governing the technical requirements for, and NMFS' approval of VMS units used in U.S. federal fisheries (79 FR 77399 (Dec. 24, 2014); 50 CFR part 600, subpart Q). One of the requirements set out in the regulation is a type-approval renewal process. Under the type-approval renewal process, VMS vendors are required to apply for a renewal of their type-approved EMTUs/services every three years. CLS America, Inc. and SkyMate Inc. did not submit completed applications for type-approval renewal for some or all of their type-approved EMTUs/services. As a result, the following EMTU/communication-services did not receive renewal, and are therefore no longer approved for compliance with VMS requirements in United States federal fisheries, after September 30, 2015:

    Skymate Stellar ST2500G (with messaging terminal). Stellar ST2500G (with closed Dell laptop). CLS America Thorium TST (The Thorium TST A2.0 and the Thorium LEO A2.0 are still approved). Current Type-Approvals

    The list of type-approved EMTUs is continually changing. For the most up to date list of type-approved VMS EMTUs, by fishery/region, please go to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/about/our_programs/vessel_monitoring.html, and click on the “Approved VMS Units” link.

    Dated: June 1, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13675 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletion AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed additions to and deletion from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a service previously provided by such agency.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Products Product Name(s)/NSN(s): Badge Reel, ID, Retractable, Bulldog Clip, Black 8455-00-NIB-0003 Flight Line Lanyard, Cord Style, Breakaway, with Holder, Black, 36″ x .25″/ 8455-00-NIB-0050 Holder, Badge, Vinyl, Re-Sealable, Clear, 33/ 4″ x 25/ 8″ 8455-00-NIB-0051 Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source of Supply: West Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, San Angelo, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Distribution: A-List Product Name/ NSN(s): Wrench, Combination, Chrome 5120-00-NIB-0120—12 Pt, 1/4 5120-00-NIB-0121—12 Pt, 5/16 5120-00-NIB-0122—12 Pt, 11/32 5120-00-NIB-0123—12 Pt, 3/8 5120-00-NIB-0124—12 Pt, 7/16 5120-00-NIB-0125—12 Pt, 1/2 5120-00-NIB-0126—12 Pt, 9/16 5120-00-NIB-0127—12 Pt, 5/8 5120-00-NIB-0128—12 Pt, 11/16 5120-00-NIB-0129—12 Pt, 3/4 5120-00-NIB-0130—12 Pt, 13/16 5120-00-NIB-0131—12 Pt, 7/8 5120-00-NIB-0132—12 Pt, 15/16 5120-00-NIB-0133—12 Pt, 1″ 5120-00-NIB-0139—12pt, 3/8″-1″ 5120-00-NIB-0147—12 Pt, 10MM 5120-00-NIB-0148—12 Pt, 11MM 5120-00-NIB-0149—12 Pt, 12MM 5120-00-NIB-0150—12 Pt, 13MM 5120-00-NIB-0151—12 Pt, 14MM 5120-00-NIB-0152—12 Pt, 15MM 5120-00-NIB-0153—12 Pt, 16MM 5120-00-NIB-0154—12 Pt, 17MM 5120-00-NIB-0155—12 Pt, 18MM 5120-00-NIB-0156—12 Pt, 19MM 5120-00-NIB-0157—12pt, 10MM-19MM Mandatory Purchase For: Broad Government Requirement Mandatory Source of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Kansas City, MO Distribution: B-List Product Name/NSN(s): Set, Bag Clip, 5 pc/MR 843 Mandatory Purchase For: Requirements of military commissaries and exchanges as aggregated by the Defense Commissary Agency Mandatory Source of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency, Fort Lee, VA Distribution: C-List Product Name/NSN(s): Cup, Disposable, Paper, Squat-Style, Hot Food, White, 12 oz. 7350-00-641-4518 Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind in New Orleans, Inc., New Orleans, LA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Distribution: A-list Product Name/NSN(s): Gravy Mix 8940-01-E62-4753—Brown, 8/12 oz. Containers 8940-01-E62-4754—Chicken, 8/12 oz. Containers 8940-01-E62-4755—Brown, Low Sodium, 8/12 oz. Containers 8940-01-E62-4756—Country, 8/20 oz. Containers 8940-01-E62-4757—Turkey, 8/12 oz. Containers 8940-01-E62-4758—Chicken, Low Sodium, 8/12 oz. Containers Mandatory Purchase For: 100% of the requirement of the Department of Defense Mandatory Source of Supply: CW Resources, Inc., New Britain, CT Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, PA Distribution: C-List Product Name/NSN(s): Label, Address, Recycled, Laser and Inkjet, White 7530-00-NIB-1158—1″ x 4″ 7530-00-NIB-1159—2″ x 4″ 7530-00-NIB-1160—11/3″ x 4″ Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source of Supply: North Central Sight Services, Inc., Williamsport, PA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Distribution: A-List Service Service Type: Healthcare Housekeeping and Related Service Service Mandatory For: US Army, Reynolds Army Community Hospital & Multiple Medical Treatment Facilities, 4301 Wilson Street, Fort Sill, OK Mandatory Source of Supply: Professional Contract Services, Inc., Austin, TX Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W40M USA MEDCOM HCAA, Fort Sam Houston, TX Deletion

    The following service is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Service Service Type: Grounds Maintenance Service Mandatory For: Fort Ord, CA Mandatory Source of Supply: Unknown Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W40M Northern Region Contract Office, Fort Belvoir, VA Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13791 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Supplemental Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Employment of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy; DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Executive Order 12114 (Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions), and in compliance with OPNAVINST 5090.1D the Navy is announcing its intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)/Supplemental Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (SOEIS) for the worldwide employment of SURTASS LFA sonar.

    DATES:

    The Draft SEIS/SOEIS is expected to be available in June 2016, at which time the public comment period will be open for 45 days. The Final SEIS/SOEIS is expected to be completed by June 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chief of Naval Operations, Code N2/N6F24, c/o SURTASS LFA Sonar SEIS/SOEIS Program Manager, 4350 Fairfax Drive, Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203; or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In continuance of the Navy's commitment to responsible stewardship of the marine environment and building upon analyses and information included in the Navy's 2001 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas EIS (OEIS), 2007 Final SEIS, 2012 Final SEIS/SOEIS, and 2015 Final SEIS/SOEIS, the Navy intends to prepare a comprehensive assessment of the environmental effects associated with employment of SURTASS LFA 1 sonar systems. The SEIS/SOEIS and associated analysis will be used to support consultations associated with expiring regulatory permits and authorizations in 2017.

    1 “SURTASS LFA sonar systems” refers to both the LFA and compact LFA (CLFA) systems, each having similar acoustic transmission characteristics.

    The Navy proposes to continue employing up to four SURTASS LFA sonar systems onboard U.S. Navy surveillance ships for routine training, testing, and military operations in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans, and the Mediterranean Sea with certain geographical restrictions and other preventive measures designed to mitigate adverse effects on the marine environment. As part of the SEIS/SOEIS analyses, the Navy will continue to assess potential impacts of SURTASS LFA sonar systems to offshore biologically important areas (OBIAs). Effectiveness of the mitigation measures that are the foundation of the Navy's operation of SURTASS LFA sonar will also be re-assessed in the context of new technologies and methodologies as well as operational practicability.

    In addition to the No Action alternative, alternatives will include the alternative chosen in the Navy's 2012 Record of Decision and an analysis of potential additional new or modified OBIAs developed from the Adaptive Management process and a comprehensive review of relevant scientific information/data during the SEIS/SOEIS review process.

    The National Marine Fisheries Service has been asked to be a cooperating agency under 40 CFR 1501.6 for the development of the SEIS/SOEIS. The SEIS/SOEIS will comply with both NEPA and Executive Order 12114 as well as other relevant environmental statutes.

    Additional information concerning SURTASS LFA sonar and pertinent environmental documents are available at: http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com.

    Dated: June 1, 2015. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13772 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Public Availability of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board FY 2013 Service Contract Inventory Analysis/FY 2014 Service Contract Inventory AGENCY:

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Public Availability of FY 2013 Service Contract Inventory Analysis/FY 2014 Service Contract Inventories.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), DNFSB is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of (1) its analysis of the FY 2013 Service Contract inventories and (2) the FY 2014 Service Contract inventories. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that were made in FY 2014. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on December 19, 2011 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventory-guidance.pdf. DNFSB has posted its FY 2013 analysis and FY 2014 inventory and a summary of the inventory on the DNFSB homepage at the following link: http://www.dnfsb.gov/open.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Sherrill King at 202-694-7070 or [email protected]

    Dated: June 1, 2015. Mark T. Welch, General Manager.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13708 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0031] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Formula Grant EASIE Annual Performance Report AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0031 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will only accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E117, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kimberly Smith, 202-453-6459.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Formula Grant EASIE Annual Performance Report.

    OMB Control Number: 1810—NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,300.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 20,800.

    Abstract: The purpose of Indian Education Formula Grant to Local Agencies, as authorized under Title VII, part A, subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended (sections 7111-7119, 20 U.S.C. 7421-7429) is to assist applicants to provide Indian students with the opportunity to meet the same challenging state standards as all other students and meet the unique educational and culturally related academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students. The Indian Education Formula Grant (CFDA 84.060A) is not competitive or discretionary and requires the annual submission of the application from either a local education agency (LEA) and/or tribe. The amount of the award for each applicant is determined by a formula based on the reported number of American Indian/Alaska Native students identified in the application, the state per pupil expenditure, and the total appropriation available. The 524B Annual Performance Report (APR) was designed for discretionary grants, however the title VII program is a formula grant program. Therefore, the EASIE APR goes beyond the generic 524B APR and facilitates the collection of more specific and comprehensive data due to grantees entering project specific data into an online database. This will allow for a comparison of LEAs across objectives. By entering information into the EASIE APR database, data will be able to be generated quickly and uniformly to facilitate data collection, as required under 34 CFR 75.720, and 2 CFR part 200.301. This APR will improve the quality of data collected that can be used for evaluation and to help make policy decisions, reduce burden on the grantees, and allow ED to inform Congress on the outcomes of this grant program.

    Dated: June 1, 2015. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13720 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0033] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Transition to Teaching Evaluation AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0033 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will only accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E117, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beatriz Ceja, 202-205-5009.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Transition to Teaching Evaluation.

    OMB Control Number: 1855-0018.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 42.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 42.

    Abstract: This is a request for approval to collect information from Transition to Teaching (TTT) grantees that will be used to describe the extent to which local education agencies that received TTT grant funds have met the goals relating to teacher recruitment and retention described in their application. TTT grantees are funded for a period of five years. Currently, grantees are required by statute to submit an interim project evaluation to the Department of Education (ED) at the end of the third project year and a final project evaluation at the project's end. In turn, the TTT program is required to prepare and submit to the Secretary and to Congress interim and final program evaluations containing the results of these grantee project evaluation reports. An analysis of these reports has provided some data on grantee activities, prior to the usage of the TTT survey, missing or incomplete data made it difficult to aggregate data across grantees in order to accurately describe to Congress the extent of program implementation. This data collection allows ED to gather data on a common set of indicators across grantees in order to describe and improve program implementation with the end goal of improving program performance.

    Dated: June 1, 2015. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13721 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 13163-004] Bishop Tungsten Development, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Request to amend exemption.

    b. Project No.: 13163-004.

    c. Date Filed: March 3, 2015, and supplemented March 31, 2015, and May 14, 2015.

    d. Applicant: Bishop Tungsten Development, LLC.

    e. Name of Project: Pine Creek Mine Water Discharge System Sites 1 and 2 Project.

    f. Location: On the applicant's mine water discharge system in Inyo County, California.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Lynn Goodfellow, Bishop Tungsten Development, LLC, 679 Marina Drive, Boulder City, Nevada 89005, (702) 293-1627, [email protected].

    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Jeremy Jessup, (202) 502-6779, [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/doc-sfiling/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-13163-004.

    k. Description of Request: The application explains that the applicant installed generating equipment that is different than the equipment approved in the exemption. The applicant is requesting to revise the authorized installed capacity of the project from 150 kW to 250 kW to reflect the generating equipment installed at the project. The application states that the installation of generating equipment with a higher generating capacity does not impact the operation and hydraulic discharge of the project.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Motions to Intervene, or Protests: Anyone may submit comments, a motion to intervene, or a protest in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, motions to intervene, or protests must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, or “PROTEST” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person intervening or protesting; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the application. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any motion to intervene or protest must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: May 29, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13740 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-67-000] Linden VFT, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on May 22, 2015, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(e) and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Linden VFT, LLC (Complainant), filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM or Respondent), alleging that the Respondent's proposed cost allocations for projects resulting from PJM's 2013 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan, including Public Service Electric and Gas Company upgrades, are unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, and preferential, as more fully explained in the complaint.

    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 11, 2015.

    Dated: May 27, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13735 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD15-11-000] Electronic Filing Protocols for Commission Forms; Supplemental Notice of Conference With North American Energy Standards Board

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on May 1, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will lead a technical conference that will include the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) and interested members of the public and industry to discuss the transition to a new submission format for certain forms required by the Commission,1 and NAESB's assistance in that process. The agenda for the technical conference is as follows:

    1 Forms 1, 1-F, 2, 2-A, 3-Q electric, 3-Q natural gas, 6, 6-Q, FERC-60, and FERC-714.

    10:00 a.m.-10:15 a.m. Opening Remarks from Chairman Norman Bay 10:15 a.m.-10:45 a.m. FERC Staff Overview Presentation 10:45 a.m.-11:15 a.m. FERC Staff IT Presentation 11:15 a.m.-11:45 a.m. North American Energy Standards Board Presentation 11:45 a.m. Question & Answer Session

    Conferences held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    Prior to the conference, Commission staff will post conference materials on the Commission's Web site, www.ferc.gov (navigate to Documents & Filings, then Forms, then eForms Refresh). The conference will also be webcast and transcribed. The webcast will be available through a link on the Commission's Calendar of Events, available at http://www.ferc.gov. An email account has been created for off-site participants to submit questions for the question and answer session at the technical conference. Please email questions at any time to [email protected]

    For more information about this conference please contact Robert Hudson (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement, at (202) 502-6620 or [email protected] or Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs at (202) 502-8368 or [email protected]

    Dated: May 29, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13725 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP15-492-000] Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on May 15, 2015, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI), filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of the Commission's Regulations, for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate the Leidy South Project (the “Project”). The various parts of the Project will be located in Clinton, Franklin, and Centre Counties, Pennsylvania; Frederick County, Maryland; and Loudoun and Fauquier Counties, Virginia. The filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Matthew R. Bley, Director Gas Transmission Certificates, Dominion Transmission, Inc., 701 E. Cary Street, Richmond, VA 23219, call at (804) 771-4399, or email [email protected]

    Specifically, DTI proposes to replace two 1,100 horsepower (hp) compressor units with one 10,915 hp unit at the Finnefrock Compressor Station in Clinton County, PA; install one suction filter/separator at the Centre Compressor Station in Centre County, PA; install one 13,220 hp unit at the Chambersburg Compressor Station in Franklin County, PA; install one 15,900 hp unit at the Myersville Compressor Station in Frederick County, MD; install one 8,000 hp unit at the Leesburg Compressor Station in Loudoun County, VA; install a new cooler and filter separator at the Quantico Compressor Station in Fauquier County, VA; and construct a new meter station at the Panda Stonewall Power Project in Loudoun County, VA. The Project will allow DTI to provide an incremental 155 MMcf per day of firm transportation service to three electric power generation facilities. The total cost of the Project will be approximately $209,657,857.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 17, 2015.

    Dated: May 27, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13733 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-149-000.

    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC.

    Description: Application for Authority to Acquire Transmission Facilities Under Section 203 of the FPA of American Transmission Company LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5347.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-136-003; ER13-135-003; ER13-137-003; ER13-138-003; ER13-141-003; ER13-142-003.

    Applicants: Georgia-Pacific Brewton LLC.

    Description: Supplement to December 30, 2014 Updated Market Power Analysis in Southeast Region of the Georgia-Pacific Entities.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5284.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1812-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-05-29_SA 2790 ATC-Alliant Energy Operating Agreement to be effective 7/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5245.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1813-000.

    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Joint Market Based Tariff to be effective 5/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5294.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1814-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-05-29_SA 2790 Notice of Termination ATC-Alliant OA to be effective 7/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5315.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1815-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Hampshire.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Joint Market Based Tariff to be effective 5/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5316.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1816-000.

    Applicants: Western Massachusetts Electric Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Joint Market Based Tariff to be effective 5/30/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5322.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1817-000.

    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

    Description: Fourth Annual Informational Filing [Cycle 4] of Fourth Transmission Owner Rate Formula rate mechanism of San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5344.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1818-000.

    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.

    Description: Notice of Termination of Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service and Network Operating Agreement between City of Seneca, South Carolina and Southern Company Services, Inc., as agent for Southern Companies.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5346.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1819-000.

    Applicants: CED Atwell Island West, LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 CED Atwell West LLC Co-Tenancy Filing to be effective 5/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5359.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1820-000.

    Applicants: SPS Atwell Island, LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Filing of Co-Tenancy and Common Facilities Agreement to be effective 5/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5424.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR15-10-000.

    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corp.

    Description: North American Electric Reliability Corporation's Report of Budgeted to Actual Costs for 2014 for NERC and the Regional Entities.

    Filed Date: 5/29/15.

    Accession Number: 20150529-5246.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 29, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-13727 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-493-000] Notice of Application; El Paso Natural Gas Company, LLC

    Take notice that on May 19, 2015, El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. (El Paso), P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, filed an application pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 153 of the Commission's regulations to amend its Monument 90 Presidential Permit to establish a maximum export capacity of 56.9 million cubic feet per day at its existing international border crossing from the United States into Mexico located in Cochise County, Arizona, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory Affairs Department, El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C., P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80904, by telephone at (719) 667-7517.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at