Federal Register Vol. 80, No.117,

Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Authority and Background B. Rulemaking Process II. Request for Information and Comments A. Products Covered by this Rule B. Test Procedure 1. Background 2. Updated Energy Efficiency Metric 3. Test Method for Cooling Mode 4. Test Method for Heating Mode 5. Test Method for Part Load Performance 6. Test Methods for Products that Operate on Mutliple Voltages 7. Test Methods for “Connected Products” C. Market and Technology Assessment 1. Product Classes 2. Technology Assessment D. Screening Analysis 1. Weight Limits 2. Chassis size Limits 3. Acoustic Noise E. Engineering Analysis 1. Baseline Models 2. Baseline Efficiency Levels 3. Higher Efficiency Levels F. Markups Analysis G. Energy Use Analysis H. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis I. Shipments Analysis J. National Impact Analysis K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis III. Submission of Comments I. Introduction A. Authority and Background

Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163, (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency and established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering major household appliances (collectively referred to as “covered products”), including room ACs.2 EPCA authorizes DOE to establish technologically feasible, economically justified energy conservation standards for covered products that would be likely to result in significant national energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA to establish prescriptive standards for room ACs manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, and directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if more stringent standards were justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(c)(1)-(2))

DOE undertook the first cycle of these rulemakings and published a final rule on September 24, 1997 (hereafter the September 1997 Final Rule), revising the energy conservation standards for room ACs manufactured on or after October 1, 2000. 62 FR 50122. For the second cycle of rulemakings, DOE published a direct final rule on April 21, 2011 (hereafter the April 2011 Direct Final Rule), amending the energy conservation standards for room ACs manufactured on or after April 21, 2014. 76 FR 22454. DOE published a final rule amending the compliance dates for energy conservation standards for residential room air conditioners. 76 FR 52852 (Aug. 24, 2011). In a separate notice, also on August 24, 2011, DOE confirmed the adoption of these energy conservation standards in a notice of effective date and compliance dates for the direct final rule published on August 24, 2011 (76 FR 52854), which also adopted compliance dates which were set forth in a proposed rule published on May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26656). The current energy conservation standards apply to room ACs manufactured on or after June 1, 2014.

EPCA requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE publish a NOPR proposing new standards or a notice of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Based on this provision, DOE must publish by April 8, 2017, either a NOPR proposing amended standards for room ACs or a notice of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended. This notice represents the initiation of the mandatory review process imposed by EPCA and seeks input from the public to assist DOE with its determination on whether amended standards pertaining to room ACs are warranted. In making this determination, DOE must evaluate whether more stringent standards would (1) yield a significant savings in energy use and (2) be both technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products. EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy or water efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following:

1. The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and consumers of the affected products;

2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or maintenance expense;

3. The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable) savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;

4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and

7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (o)(2)(B)(i))

DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the requirements within EPCA.

As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is specifically publishing this notice as the first step in the analysis process and is specifically requesting input and data from interested parties to aid in the development of the technical analyses.

In the next section, DOE has identified a variety of questions that DOE would like to receive input on to aid in the development of the technical and economic analyses regarding whether new standards for room ACs may be warranted. In addition, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in this notice.

DOE defines “room air conditioner” under EPCA as “a consumer product, other than a “packaged terminal air conditioner,” which is powered by a single phase electric current and which is an encased assembly designed as a unit for mounting in a window or through the wall for the purpose of providing delivery of conditioned air to an enclosed space. It includes a prime source of refrigeration and may include a means for ventilating and heating. (10 CFR 430.2) DOE intends to address energy conservation standards for all room ACs.

DOE notes that other consumer products, including portable ACs and residential dehumidifiers, are self-encased, powered by a single phase electric current, refrigeration-based, and provide delivery of conditioned air to an enclosed space. Portable ACs also provide connection through ducting to a window mounting bracket. DOE believes, however, that the requirement in the room AC definition that the encased assembly be designed as a unit for mounting in a window refers to the product in its entirety, and not just to duct connections. For this reason, DOE is not proposing to update the definition of “room air conditioner” to exclude other consumer products.

DOE is aware that room ACs may provide additional consumer-oriented functions besides cooling, heating, and ventilation. Certain units may offer an air circulation feature, in which the room air is circulated without the addition of any outside air. In addition, certain units may provide an air cleaning function by means of electrostatic filtration, ultraviolet radiation, or ozone generators. DOE requests feedback from interested parties on the suitability of adding references to air circulation, air cleaning, or other functions to the room air conditioner definition.

Issue A.1 DOE requests comment on the definition of room ACs and the consideration of energy conservation standards for all room ACs.

Prior to June 1, 2014, room AC performance was certified using the energy efficiency ratio (EER). EER is expressed in British thermal units (Btu) per watt-hour (Wh), and is the quotient of: (1) The cooling capacity in Btu per hour, divided by: (2) The electrical input power in watts (W). (10 CFR 430.23(f)(2))

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140, amended EPCA to require that standby mode and off mode energy consumption be integrated into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor unless the Secretary determines that (i) the current test procedures for a covered product already fully account for and incorporate standby mode and off mode energy consumption of the covered product; or (ii) such an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible for a particular covered product, in which case the Secretary shall prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode energy use test procedure for the covered product, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))

On January 6, 2011, DOE published in the Federal Register a final rule for a room air AC test procedure rulemaking (January 2011 RAC TP Final Rule), in which DOE determined it is technically feasible to incorporate standby mode and off mode energy consumption into overall energy consumption. As a result, DOE adopted new methods to calculate room AC standby and off mode energy use and the new measure of energy efficiency, Combined Energy Efficiency Ratio (CEER), that integrates standby and off mode energy use with the active mode energy use. 76 FR 972, 991-992 (Jan. 6, 2011)

In the January 2011 RAC TP Final Rule, DOE incorporated by reference into the room AC test procedures specific clauses from International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301, “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power”, First Edition, 2005-06 (IEC Standard 62301 First Edition) regarding test conditions and test procedures for measuring standby and off mode power consumption. DOE also incorporated definitions of “active mode,” “standby mode,” and “off mode” that are based on the definitions provided in IEC Standard 62301, “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power”, Second Edition, Committee Draft for Vote (IEC Standard 62301 CDV). Further, DOE adopted language to clarify the application of clauses from IEC Standard 62301 First Edition and the mode definitions from IEC Standard 62301 CDV for measuring standby and off mode power consumption. 76 FR 972, 979-987 (Jan. 6, 2011). Also as part of the January 2011 RAC TP Final Rule, DOE amended the room AC test procedure to update the references to industry test standards to the versions applicable at that time: (1) American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) RAC-1-2008, “Room Air Conditioners” (ANSI/AHAM RAC-1-2008); 3 and (2) ANSI/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers Standard (ASHRAE) 16-1983 (RA2009), “Method of Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners” (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA2009)),4 respectively. 76 FR 972, 1016-1017 (Jan. 6, 2011).

On February 25, 2015, DOE published a test procedure NOPR for portable ACs that proposes the use of a revised CEER metric that accounts for energy consumption in each of the identified active, standby, and off modes: Cooling mode, heating mode, off-cycle mode, inactive mode, and off mode (hereafter referred to as the February 2015 PAC TP NOPR). 80 FR 10212. As discussed in section II.A of this notice, DOE is requesting input on including definitions for different operating modes in the definitions for room ACs. If such additional modes are included, DOE would also consider whether to revise the current room AC CEER metric to account for the energy use in them. In particular, DOE is interested in feedback on whether to consider including in the room AC CEER metric the same modes proposed for the portable AC metric, because of the similarity between the two products.

As a possible approach, DOE could consider the proposal in the February 2015 PAC TP NOPR, in which average power in each mode would be measured and then individually multiplied by the annual operating hours for its respective mode.

In order to calculate AECi, DOE would need to define the annual operating hours for each mode. The current room AC test procedure specifies 750 hours for active cooling mode, and a total of 5,115 hours for inactive and off mode. (10 CFR part 430 appendix F to subpart B). DOE established these values in the January 2011 RAC TP Final Rule. DOE seeks input on mode hours for the complete set of operating modes that may be defined for room ACs.

To incorporate the new operating modes into a revised CEER metric, the February 2015 PAC TP NOPR proposed defining the new term; “combined cooling mode EER” (CEERC).

The CEERC would be calculated for all units, including those with only cooling function and those with both cooling and heating functions. For units with cooling and heating functions, the metric would be calculated assuming heating mode is not used and therefore, the operating hours that would have been attributed to heating mode and other associated operating modes during the heating season would be neglected. In the February 2015 PAC TP NOPR, DOE proposed that the resulting CEERC is a meaningful metric for portable ACs without a heating function, and a basis for comparing cooling mode efficiency for units that include heating function, as well as a metric that could be compared to other cooling products, such as room ACs. Id.

To calculate the overall energy efficiency metric for portable ACs without a heating function, the February 2015 PAC TP NOPR proposed that the revised CEER would be directly equal to the unit's calculated CEERC. However, for units with both cooling and heating mode, the revised overall CEER would be calculated as follows.

Issue B.1 DOE seeks comment on the merits and/or limitations of revising the room AC test procedure and efficiency metric to account for energy consumption in various modes, which may include cooling mode, heating mode, off-cycle mode, inactive mode, off mode, or others.

Issue B.2 DOE requests data on annual operating hours for the room AC operating modes.

Issue B.3 DOE seeks comment on revising the room AC test procedure to require calculation of CEERC for all units, including those with only cooling function, and those with both cooling and heating functions.

Issue B.4 DOE seeks comment on revising the definition of CEER for room ACs to be consistent with definitions proposed in the February 2015 PAC TP NOPR.

The current room AC test procedure specifies that cooling mode performance be tested in accordance with the methods and conditions in ANSI/AHAM RAC-1-2008 and ANSI/ASHRAE 16-1983 (RA2009). (10 CFR part 430, appendix F to subpart B) ANSI/ASHRAE reaffirmed the test standard 16-1983 most recently in 2014. ANSI/ASHRAE 16-1983 (R2014) specifies measuring cooling performance using a calorimeter method. DOE is aware, however, that ASHRAE is currently undertaking a revision to ANSI/ASHRAE 16-1983 (R2014) that is expected to allow cooling performance to be measured using an air enthalpy method similar to that specified in ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 “Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment” (ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009).

Issue B.5 DOE seeks comment on the possible use of an air enthalpy method as an alternative to the current calorimeter method to measure cooling performance in the room AC test procedure.

Issue B.6 DOE requests test data comparing the performance and accuracy of the current calorimeter method to the air enthalpy method being considered in a revision to ANSI/ASHRAE 16-1983 (R2014).

Issue B.7 DOE requests information on the burdens associated with testing cooling performance using an air enthalpy method. Specifically DOE is interested in data related to the required capital investment costs, per-test costs, and testing time associated with air enthalpy testing. DOE is also interested in how these costs compare to those for the existing calorimeter method, and whether the burden for air enthalpy testing would disproportionately impact certain businesses.

If DOE revises the room AC test procedure to require calculation of CEERh for models with reverse cycle, DOE would need to define a method for measuring heating performance. DOE is currently evaluating test methods that have been developed (or are proposed) for other residential or light commercial space cooling/heating appliances, such as portable ACs, packaged terminal ACs (PTACs), and packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs).

In the February 2015 PAC TP NOPR DOE proposed using an air enthalpy method to measure portable AC heating performance. The proposed method is based on AHAM PAC-1-2014 “Portable Air Conditioners” (AHAM PAC-1), which references test methods established in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009. 80 FR 10211, 10217-10231 (Feb. 25, 2015). For this method, DOE proposed standard rating conditions for the evaporator (room) side and condenser (outdoor) side of dual-duct portable ACs as shown in Table II.1. DOE considers the test conditions in Table II.1 to be the most representative of typical heating mode use for portable ACs, which are likely used as supplemental or low-capacity heaters when a central heating system isn't necessary or operating. DOE notes that the terms “evaporator” and “condenser” refer to the heat exchanger configuration in cooling mode, not the reverse-cycle heating mode.

In the current PTAC and PTHP test procedure (10 CFR 431.96), DOE also uses an air enthalpy method to measure heating mode performance. For this test procedure, DOE incorporates by reference in total the American Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 310/380-2004 “Standard for Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners And Heat Pumps” (ARI 310/380-2004).5 ARI 310/380-2004 in turn references ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58-1999 “Methods of Testing Rating Room Air Conditioner and Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner Heating Capacity” (ANSI/ASHRAE 58-1999) to rate the heating performance of both PTACs and PTHPs. AHR 310/380-2004 specifically notes that “standard ratings relating to cooling capacity and heating capacity shall be net values, including the effects of circulating fan heat, but not including supplementary heat. Standard input ratings shall be the total power input to the compressor(s) and fans, plus controls and other items included as part of the model number(s).” AHR 310/380-2004 provides methods to calculate heat pump heating capacities and energy consumption at both “high-temperature” and “low-temperature” operating conditions, but specifies that EER and coefficient of performance (COP) are only calculated for the high-temperature condition. Table II.2 summarizes the rating conditions for high- and low-temperature conditions.

Issue B.8 DOE seeks comment on appropriate test methods, external standards, and operating conditions for measuring heating performance in room ACs with reverse cycle. Specifically, DOE seeks comment on the high-temperature operating conditions specified in Table II.2. DOE also welcomes suggestions and supporting data for alternative methods.

Issue B.9 DOE requests information on the burdens associated with testing heating performance, using methods similar to ANSI/ASHRAE 58-1999 or ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, or other methods. Specifically DOE is interested in data related to the required capital investment costs, per-test costs, and testing time associate with sound testing. DOE also requests comment on whether this burden would disproportionately impact certain businesses.

In the January 2011 RAC TP Final Rule, DOE discussed that the test procedure established in that rule does not measure the benefits of technologies that improve part-load performance. 76 FR 972, 1016 (Jan. 6, 2011). The current room AC test procedure measures only the full-load performance at outdoor ambient conditions of 95 °F dry-bulb and 75 °F wet-bulb. Therefore, technologies that improve part-load performance, such as multiple-speed compressors and variable-opening expansion devices, will not improve the rated performance of a room AC under the current test procedure. In contrast, central ACs and heat pumps are rated with a seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) descriptor, but the test procedure consists of multiple rating points at different conditions that add time and expense when rating the product.

DOE concluded in the January 2011 RAC TP Final Rule that widespread use of part-load technology in room ACs would not likely be stimulated by the development of a part-load metric at this time, and therefore, the significant effort required to develop an accurate part-load metric is not likely to be warranted by the expected minimal energy savings. 76 FR 972, 1016 (Jan. 6, 2011.

For the current test procedure rulemaking, DOE again intends to investigate the merits and limitations of revising the current room AC test procedure to account for any benefits of technologies that improve part-load performance. As part of this investigation, DOE expects to research the availability of room ACs on the market in the United States that incorporate variable speed compressors and other components and controls that would enable implementation of part-load operation.

Issue B.10 DOE seeks comment on the merits and/or limitations of revising the current room AC test procedure to account for benefit of technologies that improve part-load performance, and welcomes suggestions and supporting information for test methods that measure part-load operation.

Issue B.11 DOE seeks data and information on the prevalence of room ACs in the U.S. market that are capable of part-load operation.

DOE is aware that there are room ACs available in the United States that can operate on multiple voltages for the input power. These products may have a different capacity measured at each operating voltage. As a result, a single product may be categorized into two different product classes and therefore be required to comply with two different energy conservation standards, depending on which voltage is used to test the product. Currently, the room AC test procedure does not specify which voltage a product should be tested at, if it is capable of operating with multiple voltages.

Issue B.12 DOE seeks comment on how to test and certify products that may operate on multiple voltages. Specifically, DOE is interested in comment on how to treat products that may be categorized into two different product classes, depending on operating voltage.

On February 20, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Final Version 4.0 “ENERGY STAR Product Specification for Room Air Conditioners.” 6 Along with revised efficiency criteria, EPA specified an optional connected criteria for room ACs designed to provide enhanced functionality to consumers, such as alerts/messages, remote control, and energy information, as well as new demand response capabilities to support future smart grid interconnection. Products that meet these optional criteria and are certified using a future test method to validate the demand response capabilities could take advantage of a 5-percent energy use allowance for ENERGY STAR rating qualification.

DOE anticipates that the revised ENERGY STAR specification may increase the market penetration of “connected products.” It is possible that connected products may consume a significant amount of energy while performing these connected functions. As such, DOE is considering whether to amend the room AC test procedure and energy conservation standards to account for the energy consumed while the product performs connected functions.

Issue B.13 DOE requests information on “connected” room ACs that are already on the market in the United States. Specifically, DOE is interested in the available “connected” features, as well as the energy consumption while these features are active or awaiting commands.

Issue B.14 DOE request information on the current and anticipated market penetration of “connected products.”

The market and technology assessment provides information about the room AC industry that will be used throughout the rulemaking process. For example, this information will be used to determine whether the existing product class structure requires modification based on the statutory criteria for setting such classes and to explore the potential for technological improvements in the design and manufacturing of such products. DOE uses qualitative and quantitative information to characterize the structure of the room AC industry and market. DOE will identify and characterize the manufacturers of room ACs, estimate market shares and trends, address regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption, and explore the potential for technological improvements in the design and manufacturing of room ACs. DOE will also review product literature, industry publications, and company Web sites. Additionally, DOE will consider conducting interviews with manufacturers to assess the overall market for room ACs.

As required by EPCA, the criteria for separation into different classes are: (1) Type of energy used, or (2) capacity or other performance-related features such as those that provide utility to the consumer or others deemed appropriate by the Secretary that would justify the establishment of a separate energy conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (q))

For room ACs, the NAECA amendments to EPCA, initially specified 12 product classes which were applicable to units designed for single-hung or double-hung window installation or through-thewall installation and based on the following criteria: (1) cooling capacity, in Btu/h; (2) the presence of louvered sides (LS); and (3) the capability of reverse cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6295(c)(1)). In the September 1997 Final Rule, DOE established an updated set of performance standards (effective October 1, 2000) which included four additional product classes. 62 FR 50122 (Sept. 24, 1997). In the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE split Product Classes 5 and 8 into two product classes each. Former Product Class 5 (louvered, non-reverse-cycle, capacity of 20,000 Btu/h and higher) was split into Product Class 5A (louvered, non-reverse-cycle, capacity of 20,000 to 27,999 Btu/h) and Product Class 5B (louvered, non-reverse-cycle, capacity of 28,000 Btu/h and higher). Former Product Class 8 (non-louvered, non-reverse-cycle, capacity of 8,000 to 13,999 Btu/h) was split into Product Class 8A (non-louvered, non-reverse-cycle, capacity of 8,000 to 10,999 Btu/h) and Product Class 8B (nonlouvered, non-reverse-cycle, capacity of 11,000 to 13,999 Btu/h). 76 FR 22454 (Apr. 21, 2011). Table II.3 lists the current 18 product classes for room ACs.

Issue C.1 DOE requests feedback on the current room AC product classes and seeks information regarding any other product classes it should consider for inclusion in its analysis.

DOE uses information about existing and past technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed energy conservation standards. In consultation with interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to consider in its analysis. Initially, this list will include a subset of the technology options considered during the most recent room AC energy conservation standards rulemaking. These technologies are listed in Table II.4.

DOE is aware that certain technologies listed in Table II.4 may have progressed since the April 2011 Direct Final Rule. Specifically, at the time of that analysis, the room AC industry was responding to the EPA-mandated phase-out of HFC-22 refrigerant. 74 FR 66412, 66418 (Dec. 15, 2009). This rule led to an industry changeover to R-410A refrigerant. Manufacturers expressed concern at the time over the availability of R-410A compressors, stating that production capacity of compressor suppliers had not fully rebounded and compressor suppliers had yet to offer the same range of compressor capacities and efficiency tiers (See chapter 12 of the direct final rule technical support document (TSD).). Consequently, DOE plans to investigate improvements in R-410A compressors that may have come available since the April 2011 Direct Final Rule.

Additionally, in the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE investigated the technological feasibility of the alternative refrigerant R-407C. 76 FR 22490 (April 21, 2011). For this rulemaking, DOE may reevaluate R-407C, as well as other hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) and hydrocarbon (HC) refrigerants.

Furthermore, DOE is aware that three new refrigerants have been approved for use in room air conditioners by the EPA under the Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP), subject to certain use conditions: R-290, R-441A and R-32.80 FR 19454 (Apr. 10, 2015). For this rulemaking, DOE plans to investigate the technological feasibility of these refrigerants.

Issue C.2 DOE seeks information related to the technologies listed in Table II.4 or other technologies as to their applicability to the current market and how these technologies improve efficiency of room ACs as measured according to the DOE test procedure.

Issue C.3 DOE seeks information related to efficiency improvements in R-410A compressors since the April 2011 Direct Final Rule, their applicability and/or penetration in the current market, and how the compressors improve efficiency of room ACs as measured according to the DOE test procedure.

Issue C.4 DOE seeks information related to the alternative HFC and HC refrigerants, including propane. Specifically, DOE seeks information on the availability of such refrigerants, and, their applicability and/or penetration in the current market, and how these refrigerants improve efficiency of room ACs as measured according to the DOE test procedure.

The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.

Appendix A to subpart C of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 430 (10 CFR part 430), “Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products” (the Process Rule), sets forth procedures to guide DOE in its consideration and promulgation of new or revised equipment energy conservation standards. These procedures elaborate on the statutory criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and, in part, eliminate problematic technologies early in the process of prescribing or amending an energy efficiency standard. In particular, sections 4(b)(4) and 5(b) of the Process Rule guide DOE in determining whether to eliminate from consideration any technology that presents unacceptable problems with respect to the following criteria:

(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies incorporated in commercial equipment or in working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible.

(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If mass production of a technology in commercial equipment and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of the standard, then that technology will be considered practicable to manufacture, install, and service.

(3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.

(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further.

Technology options developed in the technology assessment are evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from manufacturers, trade organizations, and energy efficiency advocates. Technologies that pass through the screening analysis are referred to as “design options” in the engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more of the four criteria are eliminated from consideration.

As a part of the screening analysis, DOE has identified three specific consumer-oriented issues that it seeks input on. These issues are weight limits, chassis size limits, and acoustic noise. The following three subsections provide further details on these issues.

In the April 2011 Direct Final Rule analysis DOE limited the total weight of the Product Class 1 (as defined in Table II.3) baseline unit to 50 pounds, to avoid exceeding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) guidelines for single-person lifting.7 DOE did not consider limiting the weight of the other analyzed product classes because baseline units in those product classes already exceeded this weight limit.

Issue D.1 DOE seeks input on the merits and/or limitations of maintaining a 50-pound limit for room ACs in Product Class 1. DOE also welcomes suggestions and supporting analysis for alternative weight limits.

Issue D.2 DOE seeks input on whether to consider weight limits for product classes other than Product Class 1 in the room AC analysis. DOE also welcomes suggestions and data for additional product class-specific weight limits.

In the April 2011 Direct Final Rule analysis, DOE used a methodology that established maximum chassis widths and heights for each product class, when considering a baseline unit. DOE established these limits based on the dimensions of the largest R-410A room AC in each product class on the market. DOE did not set a limit for maximum chassis depth in that analysis.

Issue D.3 DOE seeks input on potentially establishing chassis size limits as part of a design option analysis. DOE also welcomes suggestions and supporting analysis for alternative chassis size limits.

Issue D.4 DOE seeks input on any factors that may help define chassis dimension limits beyond the dimensions of room ACs currently on the market in the United States. Specifically DOE welcomes data on the distribution of window widths and heights in U.S. residences.

DOE understands that increased noise levels might occur as room ACs attain higher levels of efficiency. Certain technology options, such as higher speed fans, can facilitate increased heat transfer and improved efficiency, but may result in increased acoustic noise. As a part of the screening analysis, DOE intends to investigate this relationship, specifically as it relates to impacts on consumer utility. As such DOE seeks input on test methods appropriate to objectively evaluate acoustic noise in room ACs.

DOE is aware that the European Union (EU), through its EcoDesign regulations, recently instituted maximum sound power levels for room ACs assessed under EN 12102:2013 “Air Conditioners, liquid chilling packages, heat pumps and dehumidifiers with electrically driven compressors for space heating and cooling—Measurement of airborne noise—Determination of sound power levels” (EN 12102:2013). Under the new EU regulation, room ACs may not exceed indoor sound power levels of 60 decibels (dB)(A) and outdoor sound power levels of 60dB(A).

Similarly, the October 28, 2014 EPA Draft 1 of Version 4.0 “ENERGY STAR Product Specification for Room Air Conditioners” 8 proposed that measured indoor sound power level shall not exceed 60dB(A), as measured using EN 12102:2013. In response to stakeholder comment, the EPA chose to remove the sound performance criteria in its February 20, 2015 Final Version 4.0 of “ENERGY STAR Product Specification for Room Air Conditioners.” 9 Stakeholders identified the lack of availability of test chambers and the burden of both building capacity for testing and sound power testing as one barrier to the inclusion of sound performance in an ENERGY STAR specification.

Issue D.5 DOE requests suggestions for test methods that are appropriate to objectively evaluate acoustic noise in room ACs.

Issue D.6 DOE requests information on the relationship between acoustic noise, in dB(A), or other appropriate units, and consumer satisfaction.

Issue D.7 DOE requests feedback and data on how the design options presented in section II.C impact room AC acoustic noise.

The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship of products at different levels of increased energy efficiency (“efficiency levels”). This relationship serves as the basis for the cost-benefit calculations for consumers, manufacturers, and the nation. In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the change in manufacturer cost associated with increasing the efficiency of products above the baseline, up to the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) efficiency level for each product class.

DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency levels (ELs) for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverse engineering) approach, which provides “bottom-up” manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of increased efficiency, based on detailed data as to costs for parts and material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that operate at particular efficiency levels.

For each established product class, DOE selects a baseline model as a reference point against which any changes resulting from energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of common or typical products in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one that meets the current minimum energy conservation standards.

DOE tentatively plans to consider the current minimum energy conservations standards (which went into effect June 1, 2014) to establish the baseline efficiency levels for each product class. Table II.5 presents the current energy conservation standards for room ACs. If DOE amends the room AC test procedure to provide an efficiency metric other than the current CEER, DOE will adjust the CEER baseline levels to account for the new metric.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at West Texas Airport, El Paso, TX.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-1074 and Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see 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 Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

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 FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by removing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at West Texas Airport, El Paso, TX. This action is necessary due to the closure of the airport; therefore controlled airspace is no longer needed. Additionally, geographic coordinates for El Paso International Airport, would be changed from (lat. 31°48′24″ N., long. 106°22′40″ W.) to (lat. 31°50′59″ N., long. 106°22′48″ W.); and Biggs AAF coordinates would be changed from (lat. 31°50′58″ N., long. 106°22′48″ W.) to (lat. 31°50′59″ N., long. 106°22′48″ W.). These minor adjustments would reflect the current information in the FAA's aeronautical database.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, 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 Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

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. It therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.

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

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

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

Background

The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-132634-14) that is the subject of these corrections is under section 7704(d)(1)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code.

As published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, May 6, 2015 (80 FR 25970), the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-132634-14) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-132634-14), that was the subject of FR Doc. 2015-10592, is corrected as follows:

1. On page 25972, in the preamble, first column, under paragraph heading “D. Processing or Refining”, sixteenth line from the bottom of the first paragraph, the language “with Rev. Rul. 87-56 (1987-2 CB 27)” is corrected to read “with Rev. Proc. 87-56 (1987-2 CB 674)”.

Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01), dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes the standards for petitions for the establishment or modification of AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:

• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;

• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;

• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA boundary;

• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and

• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.

TTB received a petition from Shirley Frederiksen, on behalf of the Golden Hills Resource Conservation and Development Inc. and the Western Iowa Grape Growers, proposing the establishment of the “Loess Hills District” AVA in western Iowa and northwestern Missouri. The proposed AVA includes all or portions of Fremont, Page, Mills, Montgomery, Pottawattamie, Cass, Harrison, Shelby, Audubon, Monoma, Crawford, Carroll, Woodbury, Ida, Sac, Plymouth, and Sioux Counties in Iowa, as well as portions of Atchison and Holt Counties in Missouri. The proposed AVA covers 12,897 square miles (approximately 8,254,151 acres) and has 66 commercial vineyards, which cover approximately 112 acres, distributed across the proposed AVA. The proposed AVA also has 13 bonded wineries.

According to the petition, the distinguishing features of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA include its soil, topography, and climate. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed AVA contained in this proposed rule come from the petition for the proposed Loess Hills District AVA and its supporting exhibits.

The proposed Loess Hills District AVA derives its name from the hills made of extremely thick layers of wind-deposited soil called “loess” that are characteristic of the region. Author Cornelia F. Mutel wrote a book about the natural history of the region titled Fragile Giants: A Natural History of the Loess Hills, 1 in which she referred to the hills as “one of North America's gems, possessing natural features rarely duplicated elsewhere on the planet.” In 1999, the State of Iowa designated 11,266 acres of land within the region of the proposed AVA as the Loess Hills State Forest, with the goal of protecting and preserving the unique landforms.

The names used by several Federal agencies to refer to the region of the proposed AVA contain the words “loess hills.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service has designated the region as a Major Land Resource Area known as the “Iowa and Missouri Deep Loess Hills.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency describes the area of the proposed AVA as the “Western Loess Hills” eco-region. The U.S. Geological Survey describes the region as the “Loess Hills Regional Landform.” The Federal Highway Administration gave the name “Loess Hills National Scenic Byway” to a corridor of roads passing through the region of the proposed AVA. Finally, the National Park Service has designated 10,000 acres within the proposed AVA as the “Loess Hills National Natural Landmark.”

Within the proposed Loess Hills District AVA are several businesses, organizations, and events that use the words “loess hills” in their names. Two annual events in Monona County, Iowa, are the Loess Hills Prairie Seminar, which teaches children and adults about the natural and cultural history of the region, and the Loess Hills Tractor Ride. The Loess Hills Wind Farm supplies energy to the town of Rock Port, Missouri, which is within the proposed AVA. Council Bluffs, Iowa, is the headquarters of the Loess Hills Preservation Society, which works to protect the natural resources of western Iowa and northwestern Missouri through education, land protection projects, sound land use planning, and land acquisition. The city also is served by a local chapter of the Red Cross, which is called the Loess Hills Red Cross. The Loess Hills Wood Turners, which meets in Glenwood, Iowa, is a club for woodworkers who live in southwestern Iowa. The Loess Hills Hideaway Cabins and Campground is located near Pisgah, Iowa. Finally, Loess Hills Miniatures is a miniature horse farm near Sioux City, Iowa.

Although the region of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA is commonly referred to as “Loess Hills,” the petitioner proposes adding “District” to the name in order to avoid potentially affecting current use of the phrase “Loess Hills,” standing alone, in brand names on wine labels. TTB agrees that the addition of the word “District” is an acceptable modification for this purpose.

The proposed Loess Hills District AVA is described in the petition as a long, narrow region of loess-formed hills along the western banks of the Missouri and Big Sioux Rivers in western Iowa and northwestern Missouri. The proposed AVA stretches from the Iowa-South Dakota border south to Craig, Missouri, and east to Exira, Iowa. According to the petition, the proposed boundary encompasses the regions where the depth of the loess is greater than 20 feet, which allows for excellent water drainage and vine rooting depth.

The proposed western boundary follows U.S. Interstate 29 and the Big Sioux River and separates the loess-formed hills of the proposed AVA from the low, flat alluvial plains along the Missouri River. The proposed northern, eastern, and southern boundaries follow a series of roads to separate the steep slopes and deep loess of the proposed AVA from the more gently rolling landscapes and shallower loess depths of the surrounding regions.

The distinguishing features of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA include soil, topography, and climate.

The primary distinguishing feature of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA is the deep loess soil. Loess is a loose, crumbly soil comprised of quartz, feldspar, mica, and other materials. During the Ice Age, glaciers ground the underlying rocks into a fine powder called “glacial flour.” When the glaciers melted, the water pushed the glacial flour down the Missouri River Valley. When the waters receded, the exposed silt dried and was picked up by the prevailing westerly winds and re-deposited over broad areas. This windborne silt is called “loess.” The heaviest, coarsest loess particles were deposited close to the Missouri River and formed the sharp, high bluffs of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA.

Loess is common throughout the United States, but the loess of the proposed AVA is unique because of its depth. Within portions of the proposed AVA, the loess reaches depths of 300 feet. According to the petition, the only place on Earth where deep loess layers are as extensive as those within the proposed AVA is Shaanxi, China. The deep loess of the proposed AVA enable roots to extend deep into the soil without being stopped by a restrictive barrier such as denser soils or bedrock. The lack of a restrictive barrier also allows water to drain away from the roots quickly, which reduces the risk of fungal diseases and rot.

The soil within the proposed Loess Hills District AVA typically has a high pH value, ranging from 6.9 to 7.3. According to the petition, grapes that are grown in soils with high pH levels show fewer leaf symptoms of nutrient imbalance and are better to withstand cold winters than similar grapes grown in soils with lower pH levels. The petition states the higher soil pH levels of the proposed AVA are the reason varieties such as Noiret, St. Vincent, Vignole, Traminnette, Chardonel, Chambourcin, Cayuga, and Norton are grown successfully within the proposed AVA but are not as common in the regions outside the proposed AVA. Additionally, grapes grown in soils with high pH levels produce must that has lower levels of potassium. Wines produced from grape must with high levels of potassium have lower, less desirable acidity levels and are more susceptible to microbial attacks than wines made from grape must with low levels of potassium.

To the north, east, and south of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA, the depth of loess is less than 20 feet. The soils to the north, east, and south of the proposed AVA also contain glacial till, which forms a restrictive barrier that prevents excess water from draining as rapidly and fully as within the proposed AVA. As a result, artificial drainage is more common in vineyards in these regions than inside the proposed AVA. To the immediate west of the proposed AVA, the soils are primarily formed from alluvium and are poorly drained and subject to flooding.

The topography of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA is characterized by rolling-to-steep hills. Elevations within the proposed AVA peak at approximately 1,500 feet on the highest ridgelines, though local relief averages approximately 100 feet. Ridge crests are primarily oriented in a north-south direction. Erosion by wind and water has sculpted the ridge crests into irregular shapes called “peaks and saddles,” and streams have carved steep-sided valleys. In places where the soil has become heavily saturated, the soil has slipped as a unit to form rows of staircase-like terraces called “cat steps.” According to the petition, the irregular terrain of the proposed AVA has created sheltered niches with warmer temperatures than are found outside the proposed AVA. As a result, certain plants are able to live hundreds of miles outside their normal ranges, including the yucca, which is native to the southwestern States, and the pawpaw tree, which is native to the southeastern States.

The hilly, often steep, landscape affects viticulture within the proposed Loess Hills District AVA. The hilly terrain allows cold night air to drain off the slopes and away from the vineyards, reducing the risk of frost in the late spring and early fall. The steep slopes also shed excess water more quickly and completely than surrounding regions with flatter terrain, reducing the risk of fungal diseases and rot. However, the steepness of the slopes, combined with the loose texture of the soil, increases the risk of erosion. To reduce erosion, many vineyard owners within the proposed AVA plant their vines in a north-south alignment, with a slightly eastward slant to optimize the amount of sunlight that reaches the vines. Finally, the same warm niches that allow plants such as yucca and pawpaw trees to grow in the proposed AVA also allow very late ripening grape varieties such as Norton, Chambourcin, and Noiret to grow successfully.

Outside of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA, the local topography is generally flatter and lower. To the north, the local relief is similar to that of the proposed AVA, but the hills are more broadly undulating, and wide, nearly level valley floors are common along the large rivers. To the east, the terrain is nearly level to gently rolling, and local relief is between 10 and 20 feet. To the south of the proposed AVA are rolling hills with broad ridge tops and major rivers with nearly level valleys, similar to the topography north of the proposed AVA. Local relief south of the proposed AVA is between 10 and 20 feet, which is lower than that of the proposed AVA. To the west of the proposed AVA, the terrain is marked by broad, undulating ridges and wide flood plains, and the local relief is between 5 and 30 feet.

The petition compared the temperature of the proposed Loess Hills District AVA to the surrounding region. The following table, compiled from data in the petition, summarizes the growing season length, first and last frost dates, and growing degree day (GDD) 2 averages for locations both within and outside of the proposed AVA.3 The locations within the proposed AVA are listed from the northernmost location to the southernmost location, as are the locations outside the proposed AVA.

The proposed Loess Hills District AVA is well-suited for growing grape varieties that require a long time to mature. The early last-spring-frost date allows vines to emerge from their winter dormancy early without the risk of a late frost damaging the new growth or buds. The late first-fall-frost date ensures ample time for the grapes to remain on the vine and achieve full maturity and reach the desired levels of acids and sugars. Finally, the GDD average reflects warm growing season temperatures that encourage vine growth and fruit development.

To the north and east of the proposed AVA, the growing season is shorter and GDDs are fewer, so late-maturing varieties of grapes would not grow as successfully in these regions as they do within the proposed AVA. West of the proposed AVA, the GDD accumulations are higher, but a later last-spring-frost date increases the risk of frost damage to new vine growth and buds, and an earlier first-fall-frost date poses a risk for grapes that are still ripening late in the growing season. The region to the south has both a longer growing season and greater GDD accumulations than the proposed AVA, so late-maturing varieties may ripen too quickly and develop higher levels of sugars than desired.

The petition also included data on the average annual precipitation amounts for the proposed Loess Hills District AVA and the surrounding regions. The following table was compiled from data in the petition, and the data is from the same sources as the data in the previous table.

Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01, dated December 10, 2013, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth the standards for the preparation and submission of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved American viticultural areas.

Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features, as described in part 9 of the regulations, and a name and a delineated boundary, as established in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.

Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing the establishment of an AVA and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Petitioners may use the same procedures to request changes involving existing AVAs. Section 9.12(c) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12(c)) prescribes standards for petitions for modifying established AVAs. Petitions to expand an established AVA must include the following:

• Evidence that the region within the proposed expansion area boundary is nationally or locally known by the name of the established AVA;

• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed expansion area;

• A narrative description of the features of the proposed expansion area affecting viticulture, including climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed expansion area similar to the established AVA and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the established AVA boundary;

• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed expansion area, with the boundary of the proposed expansion area clearly drawn thereon; and

• A detailed narrative description of the proposed expansion area boundary based on USGS map markings.

TTB received a petition from Steve Thomson, the executive vice president of King Estate Winery in Eugene, Oregon, proposing to expand the established “Willamette Valley” AVA in northwestern Oregon. The Willamette Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.90) was established by T.D. ATF-162, which published in the Federal Register on December 1, 1983 (48 FR 54221). The Willamette Valley AVA covers approximately 5,360 square miles in Benton, Lane, Linn, Clackamas, Lincoln, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Tillamook, Washington, and Yamhill Counties. The Willamette Valley AVA is not located within any other AVA, but it does contain six smaller AVAs: Chehalem Mountains, Dundee Hills, Eola-Amity Hills, McMinnville, Ribbon Ridge, and Yamhill-Carlton.

The proposed expansion area is located in Lane County adjacent to the southern tip of the existing Willamette Valley AVA boundary and covers approximately 29 square miles. The King Estate Winery operates one of the two commercial vineyards covering a total of 508 acres located within the proposed expansion area, and has provided information that the second vineyard affected is also in favor of the proposed expansion. King Estate Winery and the second vineyard each have a winery within the proposed expansion area. A third winery would also be included; however, it does not operate a vineyard within the proposed expansion area. The vineyards and the wineries did not exist when the Willamette Valley AVA was established in 1983 and currently are not located within any AVA. The petition included letters from the president of the Willamette Valley Wineries Association and the president of the Oregon Winegrowers Association in support of the proposed expansion. According to the petition, the soils, climate, and topography of the proposed expansion area are consistent with those of the established AVA. Unless otherwise noted, all information and data pertaining to the proposed expansion area contained in this document come from the petition and its supporting exhibits.

The petition provides evidence that the proposed expansion area is associated with the established Willamette Valley AVA. King Estate Winery, where the petitioner is the executive vice president, is located within the proposed expansion area and has a “Eugene, Oregon” mailing address. The city of Eugene is located within the current boundaries of the Willamette Valley AVA. The petition also states that the two vineyards located within the proposed expansion area are included in the National Agricultural Statistics Service's annual compilation of vineyard statistics within the region called the “South Willamette Valley.”

Finally, the petition includes excerpts from wine lists from 11 different restaurants across the United States and one in Denmark that offer wines from the King Estate Winery. Although wines from the King Estate Winery use “Oregon” as the appellation of origin on their labels, the restaurant wine lists all describe the wine as coming from “Willamette,” “Willamette Valley,” or “Willamette, Oregon.” The petition states that these wine lists demonstrate that sellers and consumers currently associate the wines made in the proposed expansion area with the Willamette Valley AVA, even though the King Estate Winery does not market or label the wines as such.

The Willamette Valley AVA is a long, narrow region encompassing the Willamette River basin. The AVA is approximately 120 miles long and 60 miles wide. The current AVA boundary begins at the intersection of the Multnomah-Columbia County line and the Oregon-Washington boundary. The current boundary then proceeds southward, primarily following the meandering 1,000-foot elevation contour, into Lane County. South of the city of Eugene and north of the Siuslaw River, the current AVA boundary briefly leaves the 1,000-foot elevation contour near Panther Creek and follows a series of straight lines drawn between marked features on the USGS maps before reconnecting with the 1,000-foot elevation contour near the community of Lorane. The current boundary then follows the elevation contour as it meanders southward to Sharps Creek, to a point near the Lane-Douglas County line. The current boundary then follows the 1,000-foot elevation contour as it turns northward and returns to the Oregon-Washington boundary. According to T.D. ATF-162, the 1,000-foot elevation contour was chosen to form the majority of the AVA boundary because 1,000 feet is the maximum elevation for successful viticulture in this region of Oregon.

The boundary of the proposed expansion area would modify the portion of the current AVA boundary that follows the straight lines drawn between marked features on the USGS maps near Panther Creek, in the southwestern portion of the AVA. The proposed expansion boundary would not use straight lines between points but instead would continue to follow the 1,000-foot elevation contour to the Lane-Douglas county line. The proposed expansion area boundary would then proceed east along the Lane-Douglas county line until it rejoins the 1,000-foot elevation contour, and then proceed north-northeasterly along the elevation contour until it joins the current Willamette Valley AVA boundary near Lorane. The proposed expansion area would not extend south into Douglas County because the Douglas County line forms the northern boundary of the Umpqua River Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.89), which has features that are distinctive from those of the Willamette Valley AVA.

Both the established Willamette Valley AVA and the proposed expansion area are surrounded to the west, east, and immediate south by high, steep mountains. To the east are the Cascade Mountains, and to the west are the Coast Range Mountains. To the south are the Calapooya Mountains, as well as the Umpqua River Valley.

As justification of the expansion area, which is based on similarities in distinguishing features, the expansion petition quotes the original Willamette Valley AVA petition, which stated, “[I]t is the intention of the Oregon Winegrowers Association to define this area as broadly as geographical data and viticultural experience will allow, so as not to stifle experimentation in new sites. * * * If any such sites come to light during the evaluation of this petition, we would urge they be included in the final description of the viticultural area.” According to the petition, the proposed expansion area contains the same climate, soils, and topography as the established Willamette Valley AVA. The expansion petition concludes that, had the two vineyards in the proposed expansion area existed at the time the Willamette Valley AVA was established, the proposed expansion area would have been included because the region shares characteristics similar to those of the established AVA. Those characteristics are discussed in detail below.

The petition compared the climate of the proposed expansion area to that of the established Willamette Valley AVA and the surrounding regions. The petition included a map generated using the PRISM mapping system 1 that showed the growing degree day 2 (GDD) accumulations and average growing season temperatures throughout the proposed expansion area, the established AVAs within the Willamette Valley AVA, and the surrounding regions. The following tables summarize the data from the map:

The PRISM data shows that during the growing season, the proposed expansion area and the six established AVAs within the larger Willamette Valley AVA all have lower average mean temperatures and average maximum temperatures and higher average minimum temperatures than the Umpqua Valley AVA. Growing season temperatures within the proposed expansion area are most similar to those in the Chehalem Mountains, Eola-Amity Hills, and McMinnville AVAs. Although the average GDD accumulations within the proposed expansion area are lower than those of the six established AVAs within the Willamette Valley AVA, they are more similar to those accumulations than to the higher GDD accumulations of the Umpqua Valley AVA.

The petition also included information on the growing season temperatures, rainfall amounts, and GDD accumulations from a private weather station at the King Estate Vineyard, within the proposed expansion area, and from regional weather stations located in Cottage Grove, Eugene, and Drain, Oregon. According to the petition, Cottage Grove is approximately 11 miles east of the King Estate Vineyard, Eugene is approximately 18 miles northeast of the vineyard, and Drain is just over 15 miles south of the vineyard. The data was collected from each station from April 1 through October 31 from 2008 through 2012. Although data from Eugene was included in the petition, the petitioner states that the data from that location is not a good representative of temperatures within the nearby portions of the Willamette Valley AVA because the weather station is located at the Eugene airport and represents a warmer urban-biased climate. Therefore, although all the climate data provided in the petition is available for viewing in Docket No. TTB-2015-0008, the Eugene data has been omitted from the following table:

The data shows that although precipitation amounts within the proposed expansion area are similar to the precipitation amounts for Cottage Grove (located within the Willamette Valley AVA) and Drain (located within the Umpqua Valley AVA), the proposed expansion area's GDD accumulations are more similar to those of the Willamette Valley location. Additionally, the proposed expansion area's average mean temperatures are more similar to that of the Willamette Valley location. The data from the King Estate Winery weather station, within the proposed expansion area, is also similar to that generated by the PRISM mapping system for the entire proposed expansion area, which is summarized in tables 1 and 2.

The petition included an analysis of the soils of the proposed expansion area. According to the analysis, the five most common soil series within the proposed expansion area are, from most to least common, the Bellpine, Willakenzie, Dupee, Jory, and Peavine series. These five soils cover approximately 74 percent of the proposed expansion area. These soils are also considered to be in the “xeric” moisture regime of soil classification. Xeric soils are common in regions with a “Mediterranean” climate, which consists of cool, moist winters and warm, dry summers. As a result of the warm, dry summers, xeric soils typically retain little water by the end of the growing season.

According to the petition, there are 23 soil series present within the Willamette Valley AVA, including all five of the most common soil series found within the proposed expansion area. The most common soils within the Willamette Valley AVA are from the Jory series, followed by soils of the Willakenzie series. Soils of the Bellpine, Dupee, and Peavine series are the ninth, eleventh, and twelfth most common soils within the Willamette Valley, respectively.

T.D. ATF-162, which established the Willamette Valley AVA, did not describe the soils of the AVA or the surrounding regions in great detail, only noting that the soils within the AVA were silty loams and clay loams, while the surrounding regions contained “mountain soils.” The proposed expansion petition describes the soils outside both the proposed expansion area and the Willamette Valley AVA in more detail. According to the petition, the Peavine soils that are found both in the proposed expansion area and the Willamette Valley AVA are also present in the surrounding regions outside the AVA and the proposed expansion area. However, the region outside the AVA also contains Blanchley, Honeygrove Complex, Bohanon, Preacher, Klickitat, Kirney, and Digger Complex soils, which are not found in either the proposed expansion region or the Willamette Valley AVA. Additionally, the petition notes that, with the exception of the Peavine soils, the soils outside the proposed expansion area and the Willamette Valley AVA are all in the “udic” moisture regime of soil classification. Udic soils are common in humid climates where rainfall is evenly distributed throughout the year. As a result, udic soils typically retain even amounts of moisture throughout the year, unlike the drier xeric soils of the proposed expansion area and the Willamette Valley AVA.

The proposed expansion area is located on the leeward side of the Coast Range Mountains, which shelter the proposed expansion area from most of the cool, moist marine air that flows inward from the Pacific Ocean. The terrain of the proposed expansion area is comprised of foothills and valleys. Elevations within the area range from approximately 500 to 1,200 feet. Vineyards within the proposed expansion area are planted on hillsides at elevations between approximately 600 feet and 1,050 feet.

The topography of the proposed expansion area is similar to that of the established Willamette Valley AVA. The established AVA is composed of rolling hills and valleys between the Coast Range Mountains, which are to the west of the established AVA, and the Cascade Mountains, which are to its east. The Coast Range Mountains shelter the AVA from much of the marine air. Elevations within the AVA are between approximately 115 feet and 1,630 feet. Vineyards are planted on hillsides at elevations between 200 feet and 1,300 feet. Both the Willamette Valley AVA and the proposed expansion area are surrounded by the higher, more mountainous Cascade Mountains to the east of the two areas, the Calapooya Mountains to their south, and the Coast Range Mountains to their west.

Much of the land within the Willamette Valley AVA is part of the Willamette Valley watershed. However, the petition notes that there are portions of the AVA that drain into other rivers, including “significant acres of land” in the northern portion of the AVA that drain into the Columbia River. Other portions of the AVA drain into the Sandy River and the Siuslaw River. The proposed expansion area drains into both the Willamette River and the Siuslaw River. By contrast, the region south of the proposed expansion area and the Willamette Valley AVA drains exclusively into the Umpqua River.

TTB concludes that the petition to expand the boundaries of the established Willamette Valley AVA merits consideration and public comment, as invited in this notice of proposed rulemaking.

See the narrative description of the boundary of the petitioned-for expansion area in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this proposed rule.

To document the existing and proposed boundaries of the Willamette Valley AVA, the petitioner provided a copy of the required map, and it is listed below in the proposed regulatory text.

For a wine to be labeled with a viticultural area name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in § 4.25(e)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(3)). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with an AVA name and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the AVA name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing an AVA name or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See § 4.39(i)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(2)) for details.

The approval of the proposed expansion of the Willamette Valley AVA would not affect any other existing viticultural area. The expansion of the Willamette Valley AVA would allow vintners to use “Willamette Valley” as an appellation of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown within the proposed expansion area if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for the appellation.

TTB invites comments from interested members of the public on whether it should expand the Willamette Valley AVA as proposed. TTB is specifically interested in receiving comments on the similarity of the proposed expansion area to the established Willamette Valley AVA, as well as the differences between the proposed expansion area and the areas outside the Willamette Valley AVA. Please provide specific information in support of your comments.

You may submit comments on this notice of proposed rulemaking by using one of the following three methods:

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: You may send comments via the online comment form posted with this notice of proposed rulemaking within Docket No. TTB-2015-0008 on “Regulations.gov,” the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available under Notice No. 152 on the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine-rulemaking.shtml. Supplemental files may be attached to comments submitted via Regulations.gov. For complete instructions on how to use Regulations.gov, visit the site and click on the “Help” tab.

• U.S. Mail: You may send comments via postal mail to the Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005.

• Hand Delivery/Courier: You may hand-carry your comments or have them hand-carried to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005.

Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice of proposed rulemaking. Your comments must reference Notice No. 152 and include your name and mailing address. Your comments also must be made in English, be legible, and be written in language acceptable for public disclosure. TTB does not acknowledge receipt of comments, and TTB considers all comments as originals.

In your comment, please clearly state if you are commenting for yourself or on behalf of an association, business, or other entity. If you are commenting on behalf of an entity, your comment must include the entity's name, as well as your name and position title. If you comment via Regulations.gov, please enter the entity's name in the “Organization” blank of the online comment form. If you comment via postal mail or hand delivery/courier, please submit your entity's comment on letterhead.

You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing.

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

TTB will post, and you may view, copies of this notice of proposed rulemaking, selected supporting materials, and any online or mailed comments received about this proposal within Docket No. TTB-2015-0008 on the Federal e-rulemaking portal, Regulations.gov, at http://www.regulations.gov. A direct link to that docket is available on the TTB Web site at http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 152. You may also reach the relevant docket through the Regulations.gov search page at http://www.regulations.gov. For information on how to use Regulations.gov, click on the Web site's “Help” tab.

All posted comments will display the commenter's name, organization (if any), city, and State, and, in the case of mailed comments, all address information, including email addresses. TTB may omit voluminous attachments or material that the Bureau considers unsuitable for posting.

You may also view copies of this notice of proposed rulemaking, all related petitions, maps and other supporting materials, and any electronic or mailed comments that TTB receives about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Please note that TTB is unable to provide copies of USGS maps or other similarly-sized documents that may be included as part of the AVA petition. Contact TTB's information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-453-2270 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments or other materials.

TTB certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

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

Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice of proposed rulemaking.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB proposes to amend title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

EBSA published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2015, a proposed rule that, upon adoption, would define who is a “fiduciary” of an employee benefit plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) as a result of giving investment advice to a plan or its participants or beneficiaries. The proposal also applies to the definition of a “fiduciary” of a plan, including an IRA, under section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).1 If adopted, the proposal would treat persons who provide investment advice or recommendations to an employee benefit plan, plan fiduciary, plan participant or beneficiary, IRA, or IRA owner as fiduciaries in a wider array of advice relationships than the existing ERISA and Code regulations, which would be replaced. In the same edition of the Federal Register as the proposed regulation, EBSA also proposed new exemptions and amendments to existing exemptions from the prohibited transaction rules applicable to fiduciaries under ERISA and the Code. If adopted, these proposals would allow certain broker-dealers, insurance agents, and others that act as investment advice fiduciaries to continue to receive many common forms of compensation that otherwise would be prohibited as conflicts of interest. The proposed rule, and related exemptions, would increase consumer protection for plan sponsors, fiduciaries, participants, beneficiaries, and IRA owners. For a full discussion of the proposed rule changes see 80 FR 21928 or visit EBSA's Web site at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa, see Proposed Rules. For a full discussion of the proposed prohibited transaction exemptions and amendments to existing exemptions, see 80 FR 21960, et seq., or visit EBSA's Web site at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa (see Proposed Rules).

Since publication in the Federal Register, there has been considerable interest expressed in the proposed rule, the related proposed prohibited transaction exemptions, and the accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis, as well as several public comments requesting an extension of the comment period. The April 20 Federal Register documents provided a 75-day public comment period and required public comments to be submitted on or before July 6, 2015. Although the proposed rule included a 75-day comment period from the date of publication, the Department made clear that the opportunity for public input would not end after 75 days.

In order to ensure that interested persons have sufficient time to share their views on the proposed rule and proposed new and amended prohibited transaction exemptions, EBSA is extending the comment period for submitting comments until July 21, 2015.

The Federal Register documents published on April 20 also explained that the Department intended to hold a public hearing within 30 days of the close of the initial comment period, after which the comment period will reopen until approximately two weeks after the hearing transcript is published—a process that we anticipate will provide an additional 30 to 45 days of public comment.

The hearing on this proposed rulemaking will be held on August 10, 11, and 12, and continuing through August 13, 2015 (if necessary) beginning each day at 9 a.m. EDT, in the César E. Chávez Memorial Auditorium of the U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, at 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. The hearing will be transcribed and the comment period will remain open after the conclusion of the hearing until 14 days after the official transcript is posted on EBSA's Web site. Thus, with the 15-day extension of the public comment period announced in this document, the initial comment period will be more than 90 days and, following the public hearing and opening of the comment period until 14 days after the hearing transcript is posted, we anticipate the opportunity for public testimony and comments may be more than 140 days in total.

Persons interested in presenting testimony and answering questions at this public hearing must submit, by 5:00 p.m. EDT, July 24, 2015, a written request to testify and an outline of the issues they would like to address at the hearing. In addition to the outline, all requests to testify must clearly identify: (1) The name of the person desiring to serve as a witness; (2) the organization or organizations represented, if any; (3) contact information (address, telephone, and email), and (4) an indication of whether the person or organization submitted a written comment on the proposal, and, if so, the date of the comment letter. The hearing will be open to the general public. Any individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations should contact EBSA after submitting their written request to testify concerning the scheduling of their testimony.

In addition to testimony on the proposed rule and proposed prohibited transaction exemptions, a portion of the hearing will focus specifically on the Department's Regulatory Impact Analysis, which addresses the effects of conflicts of interest in the market for retirement investment advice and the need for regulation, the anticipated economic effects of the proposal, and the relative merits of certain regulatory alternatives. Thus, a portion of the hearing will be dedicated to testimony from panels of witnesses who specifically request an opportunity to present testimony focused on just the Department's Regulatory Impact Analysis. Persons or organizations who want to have a witness testify during this portion of the hearing should so state in their request to testify and should limit the outline for that witness' testimony accordingly.

Depending upon the number and nature of the requests to testify, and in light of the limited time and space available for the public hearing, EBSA may need to limit the number of those testifying in order to provide an opportunity for the presentation of the broadest array of points of view on all aspects of the proposal during the period allotted for the hearing. The Department expects to organize the hearing into panels of witnesses with three or more witnesses on each panel. The Department will give preference in assigning panel slots to those persons or organizations who have submitted substantive comment letters regarding the proposals by the close of the comment period on July 21. The Department will also give preference, to the extent feasible, to parties with similar interests who select a common representative to testify on their behalf. Any persons not afforded an opportunity to testify will still have an opportunity to submit a written statement on the issues specified in their request to testify. Such statements will be included in the record.

To facilitate the receipt and processing of requests to testify, EBSA encourages interested persons to submit their request to testify at the hearing and outlines by email to [email protected], subject line: Conflict of Interest Rule Hearing. Persons submitting requests and outlines electronically should not submit paper copies. Persons submitting requests and outlines on paper should send or deliver their requests and outlines to the Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Attn: Conflict of Interest Rule Hearing, Room N-5655, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. All requests and outlines submitted will be available to the public, without charge, online at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa and at the Public Disclosure Room, N-1515, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

EBSA will prepare an agenda indicating the order of presentation of oral testimony. In the absence of special circumstances, each presenter will be allotted ten (10) minutes in which to complete his or her presentation. Those individuals who make oral comments and present testimony at the hearing should be prepared to answer questions regarding their information and comments. Those requesting to testify also should be prepared to participate as part of a panel. Information about the agenda for the hearing will be posted on http://www.dol.gov/ebsa no later than August 3, 2015.

The hearings will be open to the public, but seating will be limited and will be provided on a first-come, first-serve basis. Witnesses and persons accompanying witnesses will be given priority in seating. To expedite visitor security access entrance into the building, individuals planning to attend the hearing can provide contact information by email to [email protected], and arrive at least 20 minutes prior to the start of the hearing.

Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on August 10, 11, and 12, and continuing through August 13, 2015 (if necessary) concerning the proposed Conflict of Interest Rule and proposed prohibited transaction exemptions published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2015 (80 FR 21928). The hearing will be held beginning at 9 a.m. EDT in the César E. Chávez Memorial Auditorium of the U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

Notice is hereby given that the period for submitting comments on the proposed Conflict of Interest Rule and proposed prohibited transaction exemptions published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2015 (80 FR 21928, et seq.) is being extended until July 21, 2015. Information on how to submit comments by email, mail, by hand, or by courier is in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notices of Proposed Exemptions published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2015. Those documents are also available electronically at www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/conflictsofinterest.html. All comments will be available to the public, without charge, online at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.dol.gov/ebsa or at the Public Disclosure Room, N-1513, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Warning: Do not include any personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publicly disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines. Comments may be submitted anonymously.

Table of Contents A. Potentially Affected Persons B. Background C. Proposed Action D. Administrative Review Executive Order 12886 Paperwork Reduction Act Regulatory flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 Unfunded Mandates Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Compliance With Administrative Procedure Act National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations List of subjects in 40 CFR Part 228 Part 228—(AMENDED) A. Potentially Affected Persons

Persons potentially affected by this action include those who seek or might seek permits or approval by EPA to dispose of dredged material into ocean waters pursuant to the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. EPA's action would be relevant to persons, including organizations and government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged material in ocean waters offshore of Galveston, Freeport, Matagorda, Corpus Christi, Port Mansfield and Brownsville, Texas. Currently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and other persons with permits to use designated sites offshore of Galveston, Freeport, Matagorda, Corpus Christi, Port Mansfield, and Brownsville, Texas would be most impacted by this final action. Potentially affected categories and persons include:

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, please refer to the contact person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., gives the Administrator of EPA the authority to designate sites where ocean disposal may be permitted. On October 1, 1986, the Administrator delegated the authority to designate ocean disposal sites to the Regional Administrator of the Region in which the sites are located. These proposed modification are being made pursuant to that authority.

The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations promulgated under MPRSA (40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter H, Section 228.11) state that modifications in disposal site use which involve withdrawal of disposal sites from use or permanent changes in the total specified quantities or types of wastes permitted to be discharged to a specific disposal site will be made by promulgation in this Part 228. This site modification of types of wastes permitted to be discharged to a specific disposal site are being published as proposed rulemaking in accordance with § 228.11(a) of the Ocean Dumping Regulations, which permits changes in the total specified quantities or types of wastes permitted to be discharged to a specific disposal site based upon changed circumstances concerning use of the site.

The proposed modification of the use restrictions on the Galveston, TX Dredged Material Site, Freeport Harbor, TX, New Work (45 Foot Project), Freeport Harbor, TX, Maintenance (45 Foot Project), Matagorda Ship Channel, TX, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX, Port Mansfield, TX, Brazos Island Harbor, TX and Brazos Island Harbor (42-Foot Project), TX ODMDSs was requested by the US Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District in a March 27, 2015 letter. The current wording within the 40CFR§ 228.15 restricts the use of these ODMDS to only dredged material originating from specific federal channel reaches associated with each ODMDS. For Freeport Harbor, TX, New Work (45 Foot Project) ODMDS and the Brazos Island Harbor (42-Foot Project), the ODMDSs are restricted to receive only construction dredged material from channel improvement projects at Freeport and Brazos Island Harbor, respectively. Modeling shows that future disposal capacity is limited at the placement areas typically used by the Galveston District when ocean disposal is not an option. As a result of these limitations, there is a need to change the use restrictions placed on these ODMDSs to include suitable dredged material from the greater vicinities of the respective federal channels. The proposed restriction modification will provide for sufficient future dredged material disposal capacity for material originating from dredging areas within each Federal channel and its vicinity.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant,” and therefore subject to office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and other requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to lead to a rule that may:

(a) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities;

(b) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(c) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof: or

(d) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

This Proposed Rule should have minimal impact on State, local, or Tribal governments or communities. Consequently, EPA has determined that this Proposed Rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866.

The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to minimize the reporting and recordkeeping burden on the regulated community, as well as to minimize the cost of Federal information collection and dissemination. In general, the Act requires that information requests and record-keeping requirements affecting ten or more non-Federal respondents be approved by OMB. Since the Proposed Rule would not establish or modify any information or recordkeeping requirements, but only clarifies existing requirements, it is not subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. The modification of the Galveston, TX Dredged Material Site, Freeport Harbor, TX, New Work (45 Foot Project), Freeport Harbor, TX, Maintenance (45 Foot Project), Matagorda Ship Channel, TX, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, TX, Port Mansfield, TX, Brazos Island Harbor, TX and Brazos Island Harbor (42-Foot Project), TX ODMDSs broadens the use of the sites providing additional options for dredged material placement in the Galveston, Freeport, Matagorda, Corpus Christi, Port Mansfield and Brownsville, Texas vicinities.

For these reasons, the Regional Administrator certifies, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, that the Proposed Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This Proposed Rule contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more in any year. It imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector nor does it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA do not apply to this Proposed Rule.

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

This Proposed Rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.” This Final Rule does not have Tribal implications, as defined in Executive Order 13175.

This Executive Order (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by EPA. This Proposed Rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because EPA does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

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

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. This Proposed Rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal agencies to determine whether the Proposed Rule would have a disproportionate adverse impact on minority or low-income population groups within the project area. The Proposed Rule would not significantly affect any low-income or minority population.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 228 as follows:

I. Background

On June 25, 2012, the NTSB published a proposed rule indicating its intent to undertake a review of all NTSB regulations to ensure they are updated. 77 FR 37865. The NTSB initiated this review in accordance with Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies” (76 FR 41587, July 14, 2011). The purpose of Executive Order 13579 is to ensure all agencies adhere to the key principles found in Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), which include promoting public participation in rulemaking, improving integration and innovation, promoting flexibility and freedom of choice, and ensuring scientific integrity during the rulemaking process in order to create a regulatory system that protects public health, welfare, safety, and the environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. The NTSB is committed to ensuring its regulations remain up-to-date and comply with these principles. This notice describes amendments to part 800 of 49 CFR (Organization and Functions of the Board and Delegations of Authority) that effect the agency's internal policies.

This Notice proposes the addition of a new subpart within part 800: Subpart C, titled “Procedures for Adoption of Rules.” Subpart C describes the agency's rulemaking procedures. As stated above, the NTSB has undertaken a comprehensive review of all its regulations, in order to update them and ensure they accurately reflect the NTSB's current practices and contain correct information. In addition to the ongoing comprehensive review, the NTSB has also proposed and promulgated several changes to part 821 of 49 CFR (Rules of Practice in Air Safety Proceedings) and part 826 of 49 CFR (Rules Implementing the Equal Access to Justice Act). These recent rulemaking activities point out a need for procedural rules describing the NTSB's rulemaking practices. For example, this new subpart includes a section concerning interim final rules, and direct final rulemaking authority. The NTSB believes these sections will be beneficial in assisting public understanding of agency procedures for all types of rulemaking projects.

Many of the new sections we propose are self-explanatory. As the Plain Writing Act of 2010, Public Law 111-274, 5 U.S.C. 301 note, and Executive Orders 12866 at § 1(b)(12) and 12988 at § 3(b)(2) require, the NTSB's proposed language in these new sections is clear and unambiguous. The NTSB has used regulations from the Department of Transportation as a model for the proposed text in this NPRM. See, e.g., 49 CFR 5.1-5.35 (Office of Secretary of Transportation); 49 CFR part 389, subpart B (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration).

The NTSB proposes § 800.30 to clarify the rules within proposed subpart C will only apply to rulemakings the NTSB initiates under its enabling statute, at 49 U.S.C. 1101-1155. The NTSB notes the agency's specific rulemaking authority is codified at 49 U.S.C. 1113(f); however, we propose a reference to sections 1101-1155 to provide for the possibility of enactment of rulemaking authority within other sections of the NTSB's authorizing legislation.

The NTSB proposes § 800.31 to notify the public of the location of publicly available rulemaking documents. The NTSB utilizes www.regulations.gov for organizing and publishing rulemaking documents and public comments. Proposed § 800.31 apprises the public of the existence of this electronic site.

Proposed §§ 800.32, 800.33, and 800.34 describe the manner in which the NTSB initiates rulemaking projects, the NTSB's practice of complying with the Administrative Procedure Act's informal rulemaking procedures by publishing notices of proposed rulemaking, and the expected contents of notices of proposed rulemaking. Proposed § 800.33 includes a phrase indicating the NTSB may not issue a notice of proposed rulemaking if the agency finds “notice is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” and the agency “incorporates that finding and a brief statement of the reasons for it in the rule.” As discussed below, such a procedure is permissible under the Administrative Procedure Act. While the NTSB does not anticipate engaging in such a procedure with frequency, the agency believes it suitable to provide for the exception in the text of § 800.33. The NTSB also proposes including a reference to the Administrative Procedure Act, at 5 U.S.C. 551, because the statute imposes specific procedures and requirements on agencies who engage in rulemaking.

The NTSB proposes § 800.34 to inform the public of what each notice of proposed rulemaking will contain. For example, this section will require the NTSB provide specific information concerning the availability of rulemaking documents, and dates that apply to comment periods. The NTSB believes this section will ensure the NTSB's notices of proposed rulemaking consistently contain the information necessary to ensure the public may participate in the rulemaking process with ease.

The NTSB understands providing for the opportunity for public participation in rulemaking is a hallmark of the Administrative Procedure Act. As a result, the NTSB proposes the addition of regulations describing the procedures for public participation. In § 800.35, the NTSB proposes text stating any interested person may participate in a rulemaking project by submitting written comments. The NTSB emphasizes this invitation is open to all interested individuals. The NTSB also proposes a provision stating the agency may exercise its discretion to invite any interested person to participate in rulemaking procedures. Such an invitation might include the NTSB identifying organizations that might be able to offer expertise in a specific subject matter, and requesting those organizations consider submitting written comments with relevant information. Maintaining discretion to engage in such a practice will ensure the NTSB gains the most relevant, helpful information in promulgating its regulations.

The NTSB also proposes a regulation specifying procedures regarding petitions for extension of time to submit comments, in § 800.36. The NTSB proposes a requirement stating the NTSB must receive such petitions no later than 10 days before the end of the comment period stated in the notice, unless a petitioner establishes good cause exists to extend the time for comments. If the NTSB grants a petition and extends the comment period, the proposed version of § 800.36 will require the NTSB to publish a notice of the extension in the Federal Register. Similar to other agencies, the NTSB proposes a rule concerning the content and format of written comments at § 800.37. The NTSB proposes requiring comments be in English and not exceed 15 pages. The proposed text states the NTSB accepts attachments to comments, and requires adherence to the electronic filing instructions on the Federal Docket Management System Web site when a commenter seeks to submit a comment electronically. In the event the Federal Docket Management System Web site is unserviceable or presents unforeseen problems preventing the timely submission of a comment, the NTSB will err on the side of accepting comments and assisting commenters. In addition, the NTSB proposes a sentence stating it will not accept frivolous, abusive, or repetitious comments.

The NTSB also proposes a statement in § 800.38 that the agency will consider all timely-filed comments before it takes final action on a rulemaking proposal. The NTSB further proposes including a statement that the agency may consider late-filed comments “to the extent practicable.” The NTSB has included these statements in the preambles of notices of proposed rulemaking the agency has recently published. Codifying these concepts in a regulation communicates the NTSB takes seriously its consideration of all comments it receives.

The NTSB proposes including in § 800.39 the statement that the agency may initiate any further rulemaking proceedings it finds necessary or desirable. In this proposed rule, we provide the examples of inviting interested persons to make oral arguments; inviting participation in conferences with the agency and interested persons; inviting appearance at informal hearings presided over by officials designated by the agency; or participating “in any other proceeding to assure informed administrative action and to protect the public interest.” The NTSB notes, for such examples, the agency would ensure notes and/or a transcript of the proceedings would be kept. In general, the NTSB would include such items in the rulemaking record in the Federal Docket Management System. The NTSB's inclusion of proposed § 800.39 acknowledges that public participation is critical to its rulemaking process and such participation may take different forms. In addition to initiating various types of rulemaking procedures, the NTSB also is mindful that, with regard to some rules, issuing a written interpretation clarifying or explaining the applicability of a rule may be beneficial. The NTSB may issue such a written interpretation as a Notice published in the Federal Register, to ensure public awareness of the interpretation. The NTSB believes such interpretations assist in promoting transparency and understanding the NTSB's rules, some of which may involve technical information that would benefit from further explanation.

The NTSB proposes §§ 800.40 (“Hearings”) and 800.41 (“Adoption of final rules”) stating the NTSB will only hold “informal” hearings, rather than “formal” hearings specified in 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. At any such informal hearing, the agency will designate a representative, such as the agency's General Counsel, to conduct the hearing. For clarification, the NTSB notes such rulemaking hearings are distinctive from those described in parts 821 (Rules of Practice in Air Safety Proceedings) and 845 (Rules of Practice in Transportation: Accident/Incident Hearings and Reports) of this chapter. Proposed § 800.41 describes internal agency procedures for adopting and issuing a Final Rule: The program office works with the NTSB's Office of General Counsel to draft the Final Rule and present it to the Board for consideration. If the Board chooses to adopt the Final Rule, the agency will publish the Final Rule in the Federal Register.

The NTSB proposes § 800.42 concerning petitions for rulemaking, which any interested person may submit. The proposed text specifies where petitioners must send the petition and requires the petition specify the rule the petitioner seeks to have amended or repealed. Conversely, the proposed section indicates a petition for rulemaking may propose the existence of a new rule. The petition must explain the petitioner's interest in the action he or she requests, as well as information and arguments to support the action sought.

Section 800.43 proposes text describing how the NTSB will handle petitions for rulemaking. The proposed text states the NTSB will not hold hearings, arguments, or other proceedings on issues raised in the petition, unless the NTSB specifies otherwise. The proposed text of the section states the agency may grant or deny a petition for rulemaking, and will notify the petitioner of its decision.

The NTSB proposes sections concerning direct final rulemaking and interim final rules. The NTSB proposes to use the direct final rulemaking procedure to streamline the rulemaking process where the rule is noncontroversial and the agency does not expect adverse comment.

Direct final rulemaking will reduce the time and resources necessary to develop, review, clear, and publish separate proposed and final rules for rulemakings the agency expects to be noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse public comment. Several federal agencies use this process, including various Department of Transportation operating administrations. See, e.g., 49 CFR 5.35 (Office of Secretary of Transportation); 49 CFR 11.31 (Federal Aviation Administration); 49 CFR 190.339 (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration); 49 CFR 211.33 (Federal Railroad Administration); 49 CFR 389.39 (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration); 49 CFR 601.22 (Federal Transit Administration).

In engaging in the direct final rulemaking procedure for certain rules, the NTSB would first determine whether a particular rulemaking is noncontroversial and unlikely to result in adverse comments based on its experience in previous rulemaking projects. Adverse comments are those comments that are critical of the rule, suggest that the rule should not be adopted, or suggest a change to the rule. The NTSB would not consider adverse comments to be those outside the scope of the rule or those suggesting the rule's policy or requirements should or should not be extended to other agency programs outside the scope of the rule.

After making the determination a rule would be appropriate for direct final rulemaking, the NTSB would publish the rule as a direct final rule in the Federal Register. The document would state in the preamble that the agency does not anticipate adverse comments and that, unless it receives written adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit adverse comments, the rule would become effective a specified number of days after the date of its publication in the Federal Register. If the NTSB receives adverse comments, or receives notice of intent to file adverse comments by the date specified in the direct final rule, it would publish a rule in the Federal Register withdrawing the direct final rule before it goes into effect. The NTSB may then publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with a new comment period if the agency decides to go forward with the rulemaking. If no adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit adverse comments are received by the date specified in the direct final rule, the NTSB would publish the rule in the Federal Register stating that it did not receive any adverse comments and confirming the effective date of the rule.

Proposed § 800.44 sets forth the process outlined above and describes noncontroversial rules appropriate for final rulemaking. Noncontroversial rules include technical clarifications or corrections to existing rules, incorporation by reference, rules that affect internal procedures of the NTSB, such as filing requirements, and rules governing inspection and copying of documents. The NTSB may also use direct final rulemaking for a particular rule if similar rules had been previously proposed and published without adverse comment. Even if a rulemaking falls into one of the above categories, if adverse comments are anticipated, the NTSB would not use the direct final rulemaking process. The NTSB believes the additional time and resources expended to withdraw the rule and republish it for comment will serve as an incentive for the agency to make careful determinations as to whether this procedure is appropriate.

Finally, the NTSB proposes § 800.45 to describe interim final rules. The NTSB may issue an interim final rule, which is an immediately effective rule, when it is in the public interest to promulgate an effective rule while keeping the rulemaking open for further refinement. The NTSB's proposed text includes the examples of when “normal procedures for notice and comment prior to issuing an effective rule are not required, minor changes to the final rule may be necessary after the interim rule has been in place for some time, or the interim rule only implements portions of a proposed rule, while other portions of the proposed rule are still under development.” This list of examples is not exhaustive; indeed, in 2012, the NTSB issued an interim final rule to amend certain procedural rules related to aviation certificate enforcement appeals. 77 FR 63242 (Oct. 16, 2012). Such rules needed to take effect quickly, as the changes were required by the enactment of Pilot's Bill of Rights. Public Law 112-53, 126 Stat. 1159 (Aug. 3, 2012). As a result, the NTSB utilized the interim final rulemaking process to ensure compliance with the legislative changes. The NTSB believes the proposed text of § 800.45 explains the interim final rulemaking process to ensure the public is aware of the process and when the NTSB might issue interim final rules.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the NTSB proposes to amend 49 CFR part 800 as follows: