Federal Register Vol. 80, No.157,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 157 (August 14, 2015)

Page Range48683-49116
FR Document

80_FR_157
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 48919 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science BoardPDF
80 FR 48950 - In the Matter of DJSP Enterprises, Inc.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
80 FR 48950 - Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Computer Matching Program (SSA/Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-Match Number 1310PDF
80 FR 48914 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 48860 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
80 FR 48953 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Lockheed Martin CorporationPDF
80 FR 48892 - South Dakota; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 48889 - South Dakota; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 48891 - Vermont; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 48891 - Iowa; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 48889 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 48914 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection of Information; Beneficiary Referral RequestPDF
80 FR 48949 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 48940 - Consolidated Tape Association; Order Approving the Twenty Third Substantive Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA PlanPDF
80 FR 48919 - Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 48918 - Meetings of Humanities PanelPDF
80 FR 48951 - African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA): Request for Public Comments on Annual Review of Country Eligibility for Benefits Under AGOA in Calendar Year 2016; Scheduling of Hearing, and Request for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 48920 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
80 FR 48933 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Future Plant DesignsPDF
80 FR 48880 - Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 48880 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 48932 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on US-APWR; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 48934 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Fukushima; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 48932 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and PRA; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 48909 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 48819 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India: Preliminary Affirmative Determination, Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty DeterminationPDF
80 FR 48837 - Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 48886 - Systematic Review of Immunotoxicity Associated With Exposure to PFOA or PFOS; Request for Information and Nominations of Scientific Experts for Proposed Peer Review MeetingPDF
80 FR 48866 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 48956 - Advisory Board; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 48887 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 48689 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Townsend Gut, Boothbay and Southport, MainePDF
80 FR 48689 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Narrow Bay, Suffolk County, NYPDF
80 FR 48692 - Safety Zones; Marine Events Held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port ZonePDF
80 FR 48782 - Safety Zone; Mack Cycle Escape to Miami Triathlon, Biscayne Bay; Miami, FLPDF
80 FR 48690 - Safety Zone, Indian River Bay; Millsboro, DelawarePDF
80 FR 48695 - Safety Zones; Fireworks Events in Captain of the Port New York ZonePDF
80 FR 48784 - Safety Zone; Ironman 70.3 Miami; Miami, FLPDF
80 FR 48787 - Security Zone; Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO); Concord, CaliforniaPDF
80 FR 48957 - Final Priorities for Amendment CyclePDF
80 FR 48830 - Procurement List; AdditionsPDF
80 FR 48882 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 48882 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 48883 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 48886 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 48885 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 48885 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 48885 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 48884 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
80 FR 48960 - Proposed Information Collection (Supplemental Information for Change of Program or Re-Enrollment After Unsatisfactory Attendance, Conduct or Progress, VA Form 22-8873) Activity: Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 48806 - Authorization of Production Activity, Foreign-Trade Subzone 93I, Cormetech, Inc., (Selective Catalyst Reduction Catalysts), Durham, North CarolinaPDF
80 FR 48806 - Foreign-Trade Zone 225-Springfield, Missouri; Application for Expansion (New Magnet Site) Under Alternative Site FrameworkPDF
80 FR 48807 - Authorization of Production Activity, Foreign-Trade Zone 134, Cormetech, Inc., (Selective Catalyst Reduction Catalysts), Cleveland, TennesseePDF
80 FR 48807 - Approval of Subzone Status, Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc., Lancaster, CaliforniaPDF
80 FR 48956 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure 2009-14PDF
80 FR 48810 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty DeterminationPDF
80 FR 48807 - Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Changed Circumstances ReviewPDF
80 FR 48808 - Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From the Sultanate of Oman: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty DeterminationPDF
80 FR 48812 - Implementation of Determinations Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Citric Acid and Citrate Salts From the People's Republic of China; Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From the People's Republic of China; Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the People's Republic of China; High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China; Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China; Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China; Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of ChinaPDF
80 FR 48854 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 48829 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 48854 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 48853 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 48910 - Call for Nominations for the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory BoardPDF
80 FR 48936 - Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 48956 - Flatiron Rail Inc.-Lease and Operation Exemption-Yreka Western Railroad CompanyPDF
80 FR 48863 - Announcement of Requirements and Registration for Million Hearts® Hypertension Control ChallengePDF
80 FR 48850 - Notice of Reopening of Public Comment Period for Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Recapitalization of Infrastructure Supporting Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel Handling at the Idaho National LaboratoryPDF
80 FR 48866 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 48826 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 48827 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 48851 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
80 FR 48851 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
80 FR 48850 - National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
80 FR 48852 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 48837 - Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, Scientific Advisory Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 48955 - Pipeline Safety: Public Workshop on Hazardous Liquid Integrity Verification ProcessPDF
80 FR 48688 - Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying BenefitsPDF
80 FR 48884 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 48831 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 48908 - Receipt of Applications for Endangered Species PermitsPDF
80 FR 48912 - Notice of Intent to Prepare a Resource Management Plan Amendment and Associated Environmental Assessment for the Brothers/La Pine Planning Area in the Prineville District Office, OregonPDF
80 FR 48908 - Draft Polar Bear Conservation Management PlanPDF
80 FR 48844 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Talent Search (TS) Annual Performance ReportPDF
80 FR 48833 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 48881 - Meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Children and DisastersPDF
80 FR 48835 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 48839 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 48934 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 48870 - Science Advisory Board to the National Center for Toxicological Research Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 48867 - National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee, RenewalPDF
80 FR 48805 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 48843 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 48765 - Qualifications of Drivers and Longer Combination Vehicle (LCV) Driver InstructorsPDF
80 FR 48686 - Definitions and AbbreviationsPDF
80 FR 48683 - Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal AwardsPDF
80 FR 48804 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Oklahoma Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Prepare for the September 11 Meeting Regarding the School to Prison Pipeline in OklahomaPDF
80 FR 48804 - Advisory Committees ExpirationPDF
80 FR 48821 - National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, Attribute Based Access Control Building BlockPDF
80 FR 48825 - National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, Mobile Device Security Building BlockPDF
80 FR 48823 - National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, Derived Personal Identity Verification Credentials Building BlockPDF
80 FR 48859 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission under Delegated AuthorityPDF
80 FR 48954 - Pilot Program for Expedited Project DeliveryPDF
80 FR 48892 - Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
80 FR 48893 - Homeland Security Advisory Council-New TaskingPDF
80 FR 48702 - Standards Governing the Design of Curbside MailboxesPDF
80 FR 48935 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 48791 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and a Supplemental SIP for Relevant Iowa Laws and RegulationsPDF
80 FR 48907 - Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 48683 - Revisions to Transportation Safety Requirements and Harmonization With International Atomic Energy Agency Transportation Requirements; CorrectionsPDF
80 FR 48762 - Revised Rulemaking ProtocolPDF
80 FR 48730 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Movement of the Northern Virginia Area From Virginia's Nonattainment Area List to its Maintenance Area ListPDF
80 FR 48790 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Movement of the Northern Virginia Area From Virginia's Nonattainment Area List to Its Maintenance Area ListPDF
80 FR 48794 - Public Transportation Safety ProgramPDF
80 FR 48733 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana and Ohio; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 NO2PDF
80 FR 48743 - Fludioxonil; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
80 FR 48855 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status InformationPDF
80 FR 48757 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland)PDF
80 FR 48793 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) Superfund SitePDF
80 FR 48821 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence Participant Letter of InterestPDF
80 FR 48696 - Final Priority and Definitions-Rehabilitation Training: Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center-Targeted CommunitiesPDF
80 FR 48845 - Applications for New Awards; Rehabilitation Training: Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center-Targeted CommunitiesPDF
80 FR 48753 - Hexythiazox; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
80 FR 48887 - Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 48950 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change in Order To Permit OCC To Adjust the Size of Its Clearing Fund on an Intra-Month BasisPDF
80 FR 48937 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Revised Fee SchedulePDF
80 FR 48938 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Implement Single Name Backloading Incentive ProgramPDF
80 FR 48941 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt FINRA Rule 3210 (Accounts At Other Broker-Dealers and Financial Institutions) in the Consolidated FINRA RulebookPDF
80 FR 48868 - Intent To Exempt Certain Unclassified, Class II, and Class I Reserved Medical Devices From Premarket Notification Requirements; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 48749 - Acetic Acid; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
80 FR 48861 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 48871 - Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997: Modifications to the List of Recognized Standards, Recognition List Number: 040PDF
80 FR 48869 - Neurodiagnostics and Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation Medical Devices; Public Workshop; Request for CommentsPDF
80 FR 48879 - Establishing the Performance Characteristics of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for the Detection or Detection and Differentiation of Human Papillomaviruses; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff: AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 48915 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Model Toxics Control Act, Clean Water Act, the Washington Water Pollution Control Act, and the Oil Pollution ActPDF
80 FR 48809 - Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014PDF
80 FR 48861 - Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings; Development of Model Commercial Leasing ProvisionsPDF
80 FR 48684 - Debit Card Interchange Fees and RoutingPDF
80 FR 48919 - Proposal Review; Notice of MeetingsPDF
80 FR 48883 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 48887 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health And Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 48883 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
80 FR 48884 - National Institute of Nursing Research Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 48910 - Indian GamingPDF
80 FR 48933 - Applicability of ASME Code Case N-770-1, as Conditioned by Federal Regulation, to Branch Connection Butt WeldsPDF
80 FR 48954 - Notice of Buy America Waiver for a Variable Refrigerant Flow HVAC SystemPDF
80 FR 48959 - Agency Information Collection (Application for Voluntary Service VA Form 10-7055 and Associated Internet Application)PDF
80 FR 48958 - Agency Information Collection (Foreign Medical Program Application and Claim Cover Sheet) Activities Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 48960 - Agency Information Collection-The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 48958 - Agency Information Collection-The Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 48829 - Pacific Island Fisheries; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 48686 - Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Santa Rosa, CAPDF
80 FR 48766 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Newport, NHPDF
80 FR 48767 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Placida, FLPDF
80 FR 48894 - Announcement of Funding Awards for Fiscal Years 2014-2015 Comprehensive Housing Counseling Grant Program, Fiscal Year 2015 Supplemental Comprehensive Housing Counseling Grant Program and Fiscal Years 2014-2015 Housing Counseling Training GrantPDF
80 FR 48916 - Comment Request for Information Collection for the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs Gold Standard Evaluation (WIA Evaluation); Extension Request Without a Change to an Existing CollectionPDF
80 FR 48913 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects, White Pine County, NVPDF
80 FR 48828 - Availability of Seats for National Marine Sanctuary Advisory CouncilsPDF
80 FR 48863 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment for HHS/CDC Lawrenceville Campus Proposed Improvements 2015-2025, Lawrenceville, GeorgiaPDF
80 FR 48904 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 48769 - Safety Standard for Infant Bath TubsPDF
80 FR 48964 - Registration Process for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap ParticipantsPDF
80 FR 48718 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Iowa; Update to Materials Incorporated by ReferencePDF
80 FR 48687 - Exchange Visitor Program-Waiver of Certain Program Eligibility RequirementsPDF
80 FR 49082 - Regulatory Capital Rules: Implementation of Risk-Based Capital Surcharges for Global Systemically Important Bank Holding CompaniesPDF

Issue

80 157 Friday, August 14, 2015 Contents Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48861-48862 2015-19992 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Lawrenceville Campus Proposed Improvements 2015-2025, Lawrenceville, GA, 48863 2015-19861 Million Hearts Hypertension Control Challenge; Requirements and Registration, 48863-48866 2015-20076 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48866-48867 2015-20073 2015-20121 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Oklahoma Advisory Committee; School to Prison Pipeline, 48804 2015-20043 Requests for Nominations: Georgia, North Dakota, and Delaware Advisory Committees, 48804-48805 2015-20042 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Narrow Bay, Suffolk County, NY, 48689 2015-20117 Townsend Gut, Boothbay and Southport, ME, 48689-48690 2015-20118 Safety Zones: Fireworks Events in Captain of the Port New York Zone, 48695-48696 2015-20112 Indian River Bay, Millsboro, DE, 48690-48692 2015-20113 Marine Events held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone, 48692-48695 2015-20116 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Ironman 70.3 Miami; Miami, FL, 48784-48787 2015-20111 Mack Cycle Escape to Miami Triathlon, Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL, 48782-48784 2015-20114 Security Zones: Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO); Concord, California, 48787-48790 2015-20110 NOTICES Meetings: Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee, 48887-48888 2015-20010 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48805-48806 2015-20049
Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 48830-48831 2015-20106 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission PROPOSED RULES Safety Standard for Infant Bath Tubs, 48769-48782 2015-19668 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Arms Sales, 48831-48837, 48839-48844 2015-20047 2015-20053 2015-20054 2015-20057 2015-20062 Meetings: Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council, 48837 2015-20123 Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, Scientific Advisory Board, 48837-48839 2015-20066 Education Department Education Department RULES Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria: Rehabilitation Training; Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center-Targeted Communities, 48696-48702 2015-20014 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Talent Search Annual Performance Report, 48844-48845 2015-20058 Applications for New Awards: Rehabilitation Training; Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center-Targeted Communities, 48845-48850 2015-20013 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Workforce Investment Act Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs Gold Standard Evaluation, 48916-48917 2015-19928 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Recapitalization of Infrastructure Supporting Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel Handling at the Idaho National Laboratory, 48850 2015-20075
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Indiana and Ohio; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS, 48733-48743 2015-20020 Iowa; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference, 48718-48730 2015-19588 Movement of the Northern Virginia Area from Virginia's Nonattainment Area List to its Maintenance Area List, 48730-48733 2015-20023 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plans: National Priorities List; Deletion of the Redwing Carriers, Inc. Saraland, 48757-48761 2015-20017 Pesticide Tolerances: Fludioxonil, 48743-48749 2015-20019 Hexythiazox, 48753-48757 2015-20012 Pesticide Tolerances; Exemptions: Acetic acid, 48749-48752 2015-20001 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: State of Iowa; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and a Supplemental SIP for Relevant Iowa Laws and Regulations, 48791-48793 2015-20029 Virginia; Movement of the Northern Virginia Area from Virginia's Nonattainment Area List to its Maintenance Area List, 48790-48791 2015-20022 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plans; National Priorities List: Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) Superfund Site; Deletion, 48793-48794 2015-20016 NOTICES Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information, 48855-48859 2015-20018 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.; Weekly Receipts, 48854 2015-20084 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Amendment of Class D and E Airspace: Santa Rosa, CA, 48686-48687 2015-19952 Definitions and Abbreviations; CFR Correction, 48686 2015-20045 PROPOSED RULES Establishment of Class E Airspace: Newport, NH, 48766-48767 2015-19951 Placida, FL, 48767-48769 2015-19950 NOTICES Petitions for Exemption; Summaries: Lockheed Martin Corp., 48953-48954 2015-20168 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48859-48861 2015-20038 2015-20170 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations, 48889-48891 2015-20163 Major Disaster and Related Determinations: Iowa, 48891 2015-20164 South Dakota, 48889, 48892 2015-20166 2015-20167 Vermont, 48891-48892 2015-20165 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 48852-48854 2015-20067 2015-20081 2015-20082 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 48851-48852 2015-20070 Requests under Blanket Authorizations: National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 48850-48851 2015-20068 Staff Attendances, 48851 2015-20069 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration RULES Qualifications of Drivers and Longer Combination Vehicle (LCV) Driver Instructors; CFR Correction, 48765 2015-20046 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing, 48684-48686 2015-19979 Regulatory Capital Rules: Implementation of Risk-Based Capital Surcharges for Global Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies, 49082-49116 2015-18702 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration PROPOSED RULES Public Transportation Safety Program, 48794-48803 2015-20021 NOTICES Buy America Waivers: Variable Refrigerant Flow HVAC System, 48954 2015-19967 Pilot Program for Expedited Project Delivery, 48954-48955 2015-20037 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Applications; Endangered Species Permits, 48908-48909 2015-20061 Meetings: Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council, 48907-48908 2015-20028 Polar Bear Conservation Management Plan, 48908 2015-20059 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Charter Renewals: National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee, 48867-48868 2015-20050 Guidance: Intent to Exempt Certain Unclassified, Class II, and Class I Reserved Medical Devices From Premarket Notification Requirements, 48868-48869 2015-20005 Performance Characteristics of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for the Detection or Detection and Differentiation of Human Papillomaviruses, 48879-48880 2015-19983 Meetings: Neurodiagnostics and Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation Medical Devices Workshop, 48869-48870 2015-19990 Science Advisory Board to the National Center for Toxicological Research Advisory Committee, 48870-48871 2015-20051 Modifications to the List of Recognized Standards, 48871-48879 2015-19991 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Expansion Applications under Alternative Site Frameworks: Foreign-Trade Zone 225, Springfield, MO, 48806-48807 2015-20094 Production Activities: Foreign-Trade Subzone 93I, Cormetech, Inc., Durham, NC, 48806 2015-20095 Foreign-Trade Zone 134, Cormetech, Inc., Cleveland, TN, 48807 2015-20093 Subzone Status Approvals: Michaels Stores Procurement Co., Inc., Lancaster, CA, 48807 2015-20090 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Development of Model Commercial Leasing Provisions, 48861 2015-19980 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48909-48910 2015-20125 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Committee on Children and Disasters, 48881-48882 2015-20056
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48880-48881 2015-20134 Meetings: Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, 48880 2015-20136 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

NOTICES Meetings: DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, 48892-48893 2015-20036 Subcommittee Establishment: Homeland Security Advisory Council, Cybersecurity Subcommittee, 48893-48894 2015-20034
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 48904-48907 2015-19857 Funding Awards: Comprehensive Housing Counseling Grant Program, Supplemental Comprehensive Housing Counseling Grant Program, and Housing Counseling Training Grant, 48894-48904 2015-19948 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Indian Gaming, 48910 2015-19969 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48956-48957 2015-20089 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Pasta from Italy, 48807-48808 2015-20087 Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India, 48819-48821 2015-20124 Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the People's Republic of China, 48810-48812 2015-20088 Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the Sultanate of Oman, 48808-48809 2015-20086 Citric Acid and Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China, etc., 48812-48819 2015-20085 Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China; Rescission, 48809-48810 2015-19981 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 48914 2015-20173 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Beneficiary Referral Request, 48914-48915 2015-20162 Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, Model Toxics Control Act, Clean Water Act, Washington Water Pollution Control Act, and the Oil Pollution Act, 48915-48916 2015-19982 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Brothers/La Pine Planning Area in the Prineville District Office, OR; Resource Management Plan Amendment, 48912-48913 2015-20060 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects, White Pine County, NV, 48913-48914 2015-19924 Requests for Nominations: Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board, 48910-48911 2015-20080 Legal Legal Services Corporation RULES Revised Rulemaking Protocol, 48762-48765 2015-20025 Management Management and Budget Office RULES Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards; CFR Correction, 48683 2015-20044 National Endowment for the Humanities National Endowment for the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Humanities Panel, 48918-48919 2015-20144 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Humanities

NOTICES Meetings: Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Panel Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, 48919 2015-20145
National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence Participant Letter of Interest, 48821 2015-20015 National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence: Attribute Based Access Control Building Block, 48821-48823 2015-20041 Derived Personal Identity Verification Credentials Building Block, 48823-48825 2015-20039 Mobile Device Security Building Block, 48825-48826 2015-20040 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 48882-48883, 48886-48887 2015-19975 2015-19976 2015-20101 2015-20102 2015-20103 2015-20104 National Eye Institute, 48885 2015-20098 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 48883, 48887 2015-19977 2015-20119 National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 48885 2015-20100 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 48884-48885 2015-20063 National Institute of Nursing Research, 48884 2015-19974 National Institute on Aging, 48885-48886 2015-20099 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 48884 2015-20097 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 48882 2015-20105 Requests for Information: Systematic Review of Immunotoxicity Associated with Exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid or perfluorooctane sulfonate; Nominations for Peer Review Meeting, 48886-48887 2015-20122 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48829-48830 2015-20083 Availability of Seats for National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Councils, 48828-48829 2015-19904 Meetings: Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment and Review, 48827-48828 2015-20071 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 48826-48827 2015-20072 Pacific Island Fisheries, 48829 2015-19962 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Proposal Reviews, 48919 2015-19978 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 48919 2015-20236 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Revisions to Transportation Safety Requirements and Harmonization with International Atomic Energy Agency Transportation Requirements; Corrections, 48683-48684 2015-20027 NOTICES Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 48920-48932 2015-20138 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee on Fukushima, 48934 2015-20132 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee on Future Plant Designs, 48933-48934 2015-20137 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee on US-APWR, 48932 2015-20133 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee on Reliability and PRA, 48932-48933 2015-20126 Regulatory Issue Summaries: Applicability of ASME Code Case N-770-1, as Conditioned by Federal Regulation, to Branch Connection Butt Welds, 48933 2015-19968 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation RULES Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits, 48688-48689 2015-20064 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Meetings: Hazardous Liquid Integrity Verification Process, Public Workshop, 48955-48956 2015-20065 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 48934-48935 2015-20052 Postal Service Postal Service RULES Standards Governing the Design of Curbside Mailboxes, 48702-48718 2015-20033 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 48935-48936 2015-20031 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48936-48937 2015-20079 Saint Lawrence Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Board, 48956 2015-20120 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Registration Process for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, 48964-49079 2015-19661 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48949-48950 2015-20156 Amendment to Consolidated Tape Association Plan, 48940-48941 2015-20147 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 48941-48949 2015-20006 ICE Clear Credit, LLC, 48938-48940 2015-20007 ICE Clear Europe, Ltd., 48937-48938 2015-20008 The Options Clearing Corp., 48950 2015-20009 Trading Suspension Orders: DJSP Enterprises, Inc., 48950 2015-20185 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Privacy Act; Computer Matching Program, 48950-48951 2015-20175 State Department State Department RULES Exchange Visitor Program; Waiver of Certain Program Eligibility Requirements, 48687-48688 2015-19586 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Leases and Operation Exemptions: Flatiron Rail Inc. from Yreka Western Railroad Co., 48956 2015-20078 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES African Growth and Opportunity Act Annual Review of Country Eligibility for Benefits under AGOA in Calendar Year 2016, 48951-48953 2015-20142 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

See

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

See

Surface Transportation Board

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Sentencing United States Sentencing Commission NOTICES Final Priorities for Amendment Cycle, 48957-48958 2015-20109 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Voluntary Service VA Form 10-7055 and Associated Internet Application, 48959-48960 2015-19966 Foreign Medical Program Application and Claim Cover Sheet, 48958-48959 2015-19965 Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, 48958 2015-19963 Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, 48960-48961 2015-19964 Supplemental Information for Change of Program or Re-enrollment after Unsatisfactory Attendance, Conduct or Progress, 48960 2015-20096 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 48964-49079 2015-19661 Part III Federal Reserve System, 49082-49116 2015-18702 Reader Aids

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

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

80 157 Friday, August 14, 2015 Rules and Regulations OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards CFR Correction

In Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of January 1, 2015, on page 206, in Appendix III to Part 200, in section C.7, in the first sentence of the first paragraph, remove the phrase “, must paragraph (b)(1) for indirect (F&A) costs” and on page 219, in Appendix VII to Part 200, in section A.3, in the last sentence, remove the word “the” before “HHS Cost Allocation”.

[FR Doc. 2015-20044 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 71 [NRC-2008-0198] RIN 3150-AI11 Revisions to Transportation Safety Requirements and Harmonization With International Atomic Energy Agency Transportation Requirements; Corrections AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule; correcting amendments.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a final rule in the Federal Register on June 12, 2015, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), amending its regulations for the packaging and transportation of radioactive material. These amendments made conforming changes to the NRC's regulations based on the International Atomic Energy Agency's 2009 standards for the international transportation of radioactive material and maintain consistency with the DOT's regulations. The final rule contained minor editorial errors in a calculation, outdated contact information, and outdated information for examining the materials that are incorporated by reference. This document corrects the final rule by revising the definition that contains these errors, and updates the contact and examination information.

DATES:

This rule is effective on August 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0198 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this correcting amendment or the final rule. You may obtain publicly-available information related to these documents by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0198. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final rule.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3781; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The NRC published a final rule in the Federal Register on June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33987), effective July 13, 2015, amending its regulations in part 71 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) for the packaging and transportation of radioactive material. These amendments made conforming changes to the NRC's regulations based on the International Atomic Energy Agency's 2009 standards for the international transportation of radioactive material and maintain consistency with the DOT's regulations. The final rule contained minor editorial errors in the definition of Contamination that was added to 10 CFR 71.4, “Definitions,” and contained outdated information for the contact for the rule and for examining the materials that are incorporated by reference. This document corrects the final rule by revising the calculation contained in the definition of Contamination, and updates the contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the final rule's preamble. This document also updates the examination information by referencing the NRC Technical Library in Section XVII, Incorporation by Reference under 1 CFR part 51—Reasonable Availability to Interested Parties, of the final rule's preamble. Similarly, the new 10 CFR 71.70, “Incorporations by reference,” is corrected to reference the NRC Technical Library.

Rulemaking Procedure

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if it finds, for good cause, that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the NRC finds good cause to waive notice and opportunity for comment on the amendments because they will have no substantive impact and are of a minor and administrative nature dealing with corrections to certain CFR sections related only to management, organization, procedure, and practice. Specifically, these amendments are to correct editorial errors. These amendments do not require action by any person or entity regulated by the NRC. Also, the final rule does not change the substantive responsibilities of any person or entity regulated by the NRC. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the NRC finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that good cause exists to make this rule effective upon publication.

Correction to the Preamble

In FR Doc. 2015-14212 appearing on page 33987 in the Federal Register of Friday, June 12, 2015, the following corrections to the preamble are made:

1. On page 33988, in the second column, the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section is corrected to read as follows:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-3781; email: [email protected]

2. On page 34010, in the third column, last paragraph, in Section XVII, Incorporation by Reference under 1 CFR part 51—Reasonable Availability to Interested Parties, the first sentence is corrected to read as follows:

The two ISO standards incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 71.75 may be examined, by appointment, at the NRC's Technical Library, which is located at Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852; telephone: 301-415-7000; email: [email protected]

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 71

Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following correcting amendments to 10 CFR part 71:

PART 71—PACKAGING AND TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Atomic Energy Act secs. 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 161, 182, 183, 223, 234, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2273, 2282, 2297f); Energy Reorganization Act secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); Nuclear Waste Policy Act sec. 180 (42 U.S.C. 10175); Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).

Section 71.97 also issued under sec. 301, Pub. L. 96-295, 94 Stat. 789-790.

2. In § 71.4, revise the definition of Contamination to read as follows:
§ 71.4 Definitions.

Contamination means the presence of a radioactive substance on a surface in quantities in excess of 0.4 Bq/cm2 (1 × 10−5 µCi/cm2) for beta and gamma emitters and low toxicity alpha emitters, or 0.04 Bq/cm2 (1 × 10−6 µCi/cm2) for all other alpha emitters.

(1) Fixed contamination means contamination that cannot be removed from a surface during normal conditions of transport.

(2) Non-fixed contamination means contamination that can be removed from a surface during normal conditions of transport.

3. In § 71.70, revise paragraph (a), fifth sentence, to read as follows:
§ 71.70 Incorporations by reference.

(a) * * * The materials can be examined, by appointment, at the NRC's Technical Library, which is located at Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852; telephone: 301-415-7000; email: [email protected] The materials are also available from the sources listed below. * * *

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of August, 2015.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Helen Chang, Acting Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-20027 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 235 [Regulation II; Docket No. R-1404] RIN No. 7100-AD 63 Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing AGENCY:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

ACTION:

Clarification.

SUMMARY:

The Board is publishing a clarification of Regulation II (Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing). Regulation II implements, among other things, standards for assessing whether interchange transaction fees for electronic debit transactions are reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the transaction, as required by section 920 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. On March 21, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Board's Final Rule. The Court also held that one aspect of the rule—the Board's treatment of transactions-monitoring costs—required further explanation from the Board, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Board is explaining its treatment of transactions-monitoring costs in this Clarification.

DATES:

Effective August 14, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephanie Martin, Associate General Counsel (202-452-3198), or Clinton Chen, Attorney (202-452-3952), Legal Division; for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202-263-4869); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Background

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer-Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was enacted on July 21, 2010.1 Section 1075 of the Dodd-Frank Act amends the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”) (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) to add a new section 920 regarding interchange transaction fees and rules for payment card transactions.2 EFTA section 920(a)(2) provides that the amount of any interchange transaction fee that an issuer receives or charges with respect to an electronic debit transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the transaction.3 Section 920(a)(3) requires the Board to establish standards for assessing whether an interchange transaction fee is reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the transaction. Without limiting the full range of costs that the Board may consider, section 920(a)(4)(B) requires the Board to distinguish between two types of costs when establishing standards under section 920(a)(3). In particular, section 920(a)(4)(B) requires the Board to distinguish between “the incremental cost incurred by an issuer for the role of the issuer in the authorization, clearance, or settlement of a particular electronic debit transaction,” which the statute requires the Board to consider, and “other costs incurred by an issuer which are not specific to a particular electronic debit transaction,” which the statute prohibits the Board from considering.

1 Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

2 EFTA section 920 is codified as 15 U.S.C. 1693o-2. EFTA section 920(c)(8) defines “an interchange transaction fee” (or “interchange fee”) as any fee established, charged, or received by a payment card network for the purpose of compensating an issuer for its involvement in an electronic debit transaction.

3 Electronic debit transaction (or “debit card transaction”) is defined in EFTA section 920(c)(5) as a transaction in which a person uses a debit card.

Under EFTA section 920(a)(5), the Board may allow for an adjustment to the amount of an interchange transaction fee received or charged by an issuer if (1) such adjustment is reasonably necessary to make allowance for costs incurred by the issuer in preventing fraud in relation to electronic debit card transactions involving that issuer, and (2) the issuer complies with fraud-prevention standards established by the Board. Those standards must, among other things, require issuers to take effective steps to reduce the occurrence of, and costs from, fraud in relation to electronic debit transactions, including through the development and implementation of cost-effective fraud-prevention technology.

The Board promulgated its final rule implementing standards for assessing whether interchange transaction fees meet the requirements of section 920(a) in July 2011. (Regulation II, Debit Card Interchange Fees and Routing, “Final Rule,” codified at 12 CFR part 235).4 Among the provisions of the Final Rule was one relating to transactions-monitoring costs. Transactions-monitoring costs are costs incurred by the issuer during the authorization process to detect indications of fraud or other anomalies in order to assist in the issuer's decision to authorize or decline the transaction. The Board included transactions-monitoring costs as part of the interchange fee standard called for in section 920(a)(3)(A) (costs incurred by an issuer for the issuer's role in the authorization of a particular transaction) based on the Board's determination that these costs are incurred in the course of effecting a particular transaction and an integral part of the authorization of a specific electronic debit transaction.

4 Regulation II also implemented a separate provision of section 920 relating to network exclusivity and routing.

The Board amended Regulation II on August 3, 2012 to implement the fraud-prevention cost adjustment permitted by EFTA section 920(a)(5).5 Fraud-prevention costs included in that adjustment included costs associated with research and development of new fraud technologies, card reissuance due to fraudulent activity, data security, and card activation.6 These costs are not incurred during the transaction as part of the authorization process.

5See 77 FR 46,258 (Aug. 3, 2012).

6See 77 FR at 46,264.

On March 21, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Board's Final Rule relating to the interchange fee standard. NACS v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 746 F.3d 474 (D.C. Cir. 2014).7 The Court of Appeals held, however, that one aspect of the rule—the Board's treatment of transactions-monitoring costs—required further explanation from the Board, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Board's position that “transactions-monitoring costs can reasonably qualify both as costs `specific to a particular transaction' (section 920(a)(4)(B)) and as fraud-prevention costs (section 920(a)(5)).” 746 F.3d at 492. The Court held, however, that the Board had not adequately articulated its reasons for including transactions-monitoring in the interchange fee standard rather than in the fraud-prevention adjustment.

7 The U.S. Supreme Court denied the retailers' petition for a writ of certiorari on January 20, 2015. 135 S. Ct. 1170 (2015).

II. Rationale for Including Transactions-Monitoring Costs in the Interchange Fee Standard

In the Final Rule, the Board identified the types of costs that could not be included in the interchange fee standard under section 920(a)(4)(B)(ii) (other costs “not specific to a particular transaction”) on the basis of whether those costs are “incurred in the course of effecting” transactions.8 Costs that were “not incurred in the course of effecting any electronic debit transaction” were determined to be outside of the allowable ambit of the interchange fee standard, but the standard could include “any cost that is not prohibited—i.e., any cost that is incurred in effecting any electronic debit transaction.” 9 Thus, for example, the costs of equipment, hardware, software, and labor associated with transactions processing were properly included in the interchange fee standard because no particular transaction can occur without incurring these costs, and thus these costs are “specific to a particular transaction.” 10 In upholding the rule, the Court of Appeals found this to be “reasonable line-drawing.” 11

8 76 FR 43,394, 43,426 (July 20, 2011).

9Id.

10 76 FR at 43,430.

11 746 F.3d at 490.

The same rationale supports including transactions-monitoring costs in the interchange fee standard. Transactions-monitoring systems, such as neural networks and fraud-risk scoring systems, assist in the authorization process by providing information needed by the issuer in deciding whether the issuer should authorize the transaction before the issuer decides to approve or decline the transaction. Like other authorization steps, such as confirming that a card is valid and authenticating the cardholder, transactions-monitoring is integral to an issuer's decision to authorize a specific transaction.12 In fact, most costs of the authorization process (which are costs Congress required to be considered in determining the interchange fee) assist in preventing some type of fraud. Steps in the authorization process may include ensuring that the transaction is not against an account that has been closed, checking to be sure the card has not been reported lost or stolen, checking that there is an adequate balance, and authenticating the cardholder. Like transactions-monitoring, these authorization steps are all “specific to a particular transaction” in the sense that they occur in connection with each transaction that is authorized or declined. Because the statute requires the Board to consider incremental authorization costs in setting the interchange fee standard, the Board concluded that that it should consider the costs of all activities that are integral to authorization, even if those costs are also incurred for the dual purpose of helping to prevent fraud.

12 76 FR at 43,430-31.

By contrast, fraud-prevention costs that the Board used to calculate the separate fraud-prevention adjustment authorized under section 920(a)(5) were not necessary to effect a particular transaction and were not part of the authorization, clearing, or settlement process, and thus a particular electronic debit transaction could occur without the issuer incurring these costs. As the Board stated in the Final Rule, the types of fraud-prevention activities considered in connection with the fraud-prevention adjustment were those activities designed to prevent debit card fraud at times other than when the issuer is authorizing, settling, or clearing a transaction.13 For example, in setting the fraud-prevention adjustment, the Board considered costs associated with research and development of new fraud prevention technologies, card reissuance due to fraudulent activity, data security, and card activation.14

13 76 FR at 43,431.

14 77 FR at 46,264.

As noted above, section 920(a)(4)(B) specifically directs the Board to consider in establishing the interchange fee standard the costs “incurred by the issuer for the role of the issuer in the authorization, clearance or settlement of a particular transaction.” Transactions monitoring is an integral part of the authorization process, so that the costs incurred in that process are part of the authorization costs that the Board is required by the statute to consider when establishing the interchange fee standard. In addition, the statutory language of section 920(a)(5), which differs in important respects from section 920(a)(4)(B), supports the Board's decision to include transactions-monitoring costs in the interchange fee standard rather than in the separate fraud prevention adjustment. The costs considered in section 920(a)(5)(A)(i) are those of preventing fraud “in relation to electronic debit transactions,” rather than costs of “a particular electronic debit transaction” referenced in section 920(a)(4)(B). Congress's elimination of the word “particular” and its use of the more general phrase “in relation to,” along with its use of the plural “transactions,” indicates that the fraud-prevention adjustment may take into account an issuer's fraud prevention costs over a broad spectrum of transactions that are not linked to a particular transaction.

Moreover, section 920(a)(5) permits the Board to adopt a separate adjustment “to make allowance for costs incurred by the issuer in preventing fraud in relation to electronic debit transactions involving that issuer” if certain standards are met, and directs that those standards include that the issuers take steps to “reduce the occurrence of, and costs from, fraud in relation to electronic debit transactions,” including “development and implementation of cost-effective fraud prevention technology.” Section 920(a)(5)(A)(i), (A)(ii)(II) (emphasis supplied). The use of the general phrase “fraud in relation to electronic debit transactions” and the specific reference to developing fraud prevention technology suggest a Congressional intent to use the fraud prevention adjustment to encourage issuers to develop and adopt programmatic improvements to address fraud outside of the context of particular transactions that incur costs for authorization, clearance, or settlement. The types of costs the Board included in the separate fraud prevention adjustment are programmatic costs, such as researching and developing new fraud prevention technologies and data security, and other costs that encourage enhanced fraud prevention that are not necessary to effect particular transactions.

The Board is publishing this explanation in accordance with the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 10, 2015. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-19979 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 1 Definitions and Abbreviations CFR Correction

In Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1 to 59, revised as of January 1, 2015, on pages 12 and 13, in § 1.1, the definitions beginning with V A and ending with V S are removed.

[FR Doc. 2015-20045 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3325; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-15] Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Santa Rosa, CA AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule, technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as an extension at Santa Rosa, CA, by updating the geographic coordinates of Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport to coincide with the FAAs database. This action does not involve a change in the dimensions or operating requirements of the airspace.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, October 15, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 29591; Telephone: (202) 267-8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rob Riedl, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA, 98057; Telephone (425) 203-4534.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for this Rulemaking

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

History

The FAAs Aeronautical Information Services identified that the airport reference point (ARP) was not coincidental with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action makes these corrections. Accordingly, since this action merely adjusts the geographic coordinates of the airport, notice and public procedure under 553(b) are unnecessary.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, 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 final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as an extension at Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, Santa Rosa, CA. The airport's geographic coordinates are adjusted to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database. This is an administrative change and does not affect the dimensions or operating requirements of the airspace area.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace AWP CA D Santa Rosa, CA [Amended]

Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, CA (lat. 38°30′35″ N., long. 122°48′46″ W.).

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Santa Rosa/Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to Class D or Class E Surface Area AWP CA E4 Santa Rosa, CA [Amended]

Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, CA (lat. 38°30′35″ N., long. 122°48′46″ W.).

That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2 miles either side of the 342° bearing from the Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, CA, extending from the 4.3- mile radius of the airport to 14 miles northwest of the airport.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 5, 2015. Christopher Ramirez, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-19952 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 62 [Public Notice: 9215] Exchange Visitor Program—Waiver of Certain Program Eligibility Requirements AGENCY:

Department of State.

ACTION:

Change of program duration for current YES program students from Yemen.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with the General Provisions of the Exchange Visitor Program regulations, the Department's Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs has waived certain program eligibility requirements with respect to an educational and cultural exchange program established pursuant to an arrangement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Yemen.

DATES:

Effective August 14, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mara Tekach, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional Exchanges, U.S. Department of State, SA-5, Floor 5, 2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20522; or email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Department of State (the Department) administers the Exchange Visitor Program pursuant to the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2451, et. seq.), also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act (the Act). The purpose of the Act is to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries, including through educational and cultural exchanges. The Department's implementing regulations for the Exchange Visitor Program are set forth at 22 CFR part 62.

In accordance with 22 CFR 62.1(c), the Department's Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs has waived 22 CFR 62.25(c) with respect to an educational and cultural exchange program established pursuant to an arrangement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Yemen. The program, which begins in August 2015, is for approximately thirty students from the Republic of Yemen currently in the United States on the Kennedy-Lugar Youth Exchange & Study Program (YES). This waiver of 22 CFR 62.25(c), which imposes a one-year maximum program duration for secondary school participants, will allow those students to receive continued educational and cultural programming offered by the Department for a period of one additional year.

Mara Tekach, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2015-19586 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Part 4022 Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits AGENCY:

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the regulation for valuation dates in September 2015. The interest assumptions are used for paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.

DATES:

Effective September 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine B. Klion ([email protected]), Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's Web site (http://www.pbgc.gov).

PBGC uses the interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to Part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in Appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.

The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for September 2015.1

1 Appendix B to PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) prescribes interest assumptions for valuing benefits under terminating covered single-employer plans for purposes of allocation of assets under ERISA section 4044. Those assumptions are updated quarterly.

The September 2015 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 1.25 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for August 2015, these interest assumptions represent a decrease of 0.25 percent in the immediate annuity rate and are otherwise unchanged.

PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during September 2015, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4022

Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:

PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 4022 continues to read as follows: Authority:

29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.

2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set 263, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for PBGC Payments Rate set For plans with a
  • valuation date
  • On or after Before Immediate
  • annuity rate
  • (percent)
  • Deferred annuities
  • (percent)
  • i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 263 9-1-15 10-1-15 1.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 263, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for Private-Sector Payments Rate set For plans with a
  • valuation date
  • On or after Before Immediate
  • annuity rate
  • (percent)
  • Deferred annuities
  • (percent)
  • i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 263 9-1-15 10-1-15 1.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    Issued in Washington, DC, on this 6th day of August 2015. Judith Starr, General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20064 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0710] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Narrow Bay, Suffolk County, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the operation of the Smith Point Bridge across Narrow Bay, mile 6.1, at Suffolk County, New York. This deviation is necessary to accommodate the 5K Run for Literacy. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for one hour.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 9 a.m. through 10 a.m. on September 12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0710] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4330, [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Smith Point Bridge, mile 6.1, across Narrow Bay, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 18 feet at mean high water and 19 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.799(d).

    The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational vessels of various sizes.

    The Community Family Literacy Project, Inc. requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate the 5K Run for Literacy.

    Under this temporary deviation the Smith Point Bridge may remain in the closed position for one hour between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on Saturday September 12, 2015.

    There are no alternate routes for vessel traffic; however, vessels that can pass under the closed draws during this closure may do so at all times. The bridge may be opened in the event of an emergency.

    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 5, 2015. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20117 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0765] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Townsend Gut, Boothbay and Southport, Maine AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Southport (SR 27) Bridge, across Townsend Gut, mile 0.7, at Boothbay and Southport, Maine. This deviation is necessary to facilitate replacement of the bridge wedge motor. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for 24 hours.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on October 5, 2015 through 7 a.m. on October 6, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0765] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, contact Mr. Joe M. Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4336, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Southport (SR 27) Bridge, mile 0.7, across the Townsend Gut has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 10 feet at mean high water and 19 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.537.

    Maine Department of Transportation requested this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate essential bridge repairs.

    Under this temporary deviation, the Southport Bridge (SR 27) may remain in the closed position from 7 a.m. on October 5, 2015 through 7 a.m. on October 6, 2015.

    The bridge will be able to open in the event of an emergency. There is no alternate route for vessel traffic; however, vessels that can pass under the closed draws during this closure may do so at any time.

    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 5, 2015. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20118 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0563] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Indian River Bay; Millsboro, Delaware AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the waters of Indian River Bay adjacent to Millsboro, Delaware. The safety zone will restrict vessel traffic in Indian River Bay within a 200 foot radius of a fireworks barge. This safety zone is necessary to protect the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on August 22 and September 26, 2015 with rain date of August 23 and September 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0563]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary rule, call or email Lieutenant Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (215) 271-4851, email [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking COTP Captain of the Port A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule after publication of NPRM USCG-2015-0563 (80 FR 42072; Jul. 16, 2015) which received no comments.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    The purpose of this safety zone is to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with the fireworks display, such as accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.

    C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, is establishing a safety zone on specified waters that will encompass all waters of Indian River Bay, within a 200 foot radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 38-36.58 N., 075-09.00 W., adjacent to Millsboro, Delaware. The safety zone will be effective from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on August 22 and September 26, 2015, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port. Should inclement weather require cancellation of the fireworks display on the above scheduled dates, the safety zone will be effective from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on August 23 and September 27, 2015, respectively.

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, or his representative may be contacted via VHF channel 16 or at 215-271-4807.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analysis based on these statutes or executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this regulation will restrict access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The Coast Guard will make extensive notification of the Safety Zone to the maritime public via maritime advisories so mariners can alter their plans accordingly; (ii) vessels may still be permitted to transit through the safety zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port on a case-by-case basis; and (iii) the size and duration of the zone are relatively limited in scope.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

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

    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to anchor or transit along Indian River Bay, adjacent to Millsboro, Delaware, on August 22 and September 26, 2015, from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m., unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port.

    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: vessel traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with permission of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, or his designated representative and the safety zone is limited in size and duration. The Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of Indian River Bay.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 165, applicable to safety zones on the navigable waterways. This zone will temporarily restrict vessel traffic from anchoring or transiting a portion of Indian River Bay near Millsboro, Delaware, in order to protect the safety of life and property on the waters while a fireworks display is conducted. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add temporary § 165.T05-0563, to read as follows:
    § 165.T05-0563 Safety Zone, Indian River Bay; Millsboro, DE

    (a) Regulated area. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of Indian River Bay within a 200 foot radius of a fireworks barge located approximately at position 38-36.58 N, 075-09.00 W near Millsboro, Delaware.

    (b) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33 CFR 165.23 apply to this safety zone created by this section § 165.T05-0563.

    (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering this zone, except as authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

    (2) This section applies to all vessels wishing to transit through the safety zone except vessels that are engaged in the following operations:

    (i) Enforcing laws;

    (ii) Servicing aids to navigation; and

    (iii) Emergency response vessels.

    (3) No person or vessel may enter or remain in a safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port;

    (4) Each person and vessel in a safety zone shall obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port;

    (5) No person may board, or take or place any article or thing on board, any vessel in a safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port; and

    (c) Definitions. (1) Captain of the Port means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay, or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.

    (2) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by Federal, State, and local agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the zone.

    (e) Enforcement period. This safety zone will be effective on August 22 and September 26, 2015, from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m., unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port. Should inclement weather require cancellation of the fireworks display on the above scheduled dates, the safety zone will be enforced between 8:45 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. on August 23 and September 27, 2015, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: August 5, 2015. B. A. Cooper, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20113 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0646] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zones; Marine Events Held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing six safety zones for fireworks displays within the Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound (LIS) Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. This temporary final rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during these events. Entry into, transit through, mooring or anchoring within these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by COTP Sector LIS.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from 12:01 a.m. on August 14, 2015 until 11 p.m. on August 23, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, July 29, 2015, until August 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0646]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, contact Petty Officer Ian Fallon, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, telephone (203) 468-4565, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NAD 83 North American Datum 1983 A. Regulatory History and Information

    This rulemaking establishes six safety zones for six fireworks displays. Each event and its corresponding regulatory history are discussed below.

    Sag Harbor Fire Department Fireworks is a first time marine event with no regulatory history.

    Sebonack Golf Club Fireworks is a reoccurring marine event with regulatory history and is cited in 33 CFR 165.151(7.44). This event has been included in this rule due to deviation from the date and location in this cite.

    Wood Family Celebration Fireworks is a first time marine event with no regulatory history.

    Baker Annual Summer Celebration is a recurring marine event with regulatory history. A safety zone was established for this event on August 16, 2014 via a temporary final rule entitled, “Safety Zones; Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Zone”. This rule was published on August 18, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR 48685).

    Clinton Chamber of Commerce Fireworks is a first time marine event with no regulatory history.

    Old Black Point Beach Fireworks is a reoccurring marine event with regulatory history and is cited in 33 CFR 165.151(8.3). This event has been included in this rule due to deviation from the location in this cite.

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. There is insufficient time to publish an NPRM and solicit comments from the public before these events take place. Thus, waiting for a comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to fulfill its mission to keep the ports and waterways safe.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones.

    Six fireworks displays will take place in the Coast Guard Sector LIS COTP Zone between August 7, 2015 and August 23, 2015. The COTP Sector LIS has determined that the six safety zones established by this temporary final rule are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during those events.

    Sag Harbor Fire Department Fireworks will be held at a land launch at Havens Beach, Sag Harbor, NY.

    Sebonack Golf Club Fireworks will be held on Peconic Bay, Southampton, NY.

    Wood Family Celebration Fireworks will be held on Peconic Bay, Jamesport, NY.

    Baker Annual Summer Celebration will be held on Flanders Bay, Southampton, NY.

    Clinton Chamber of Commerce Fireworks will be held at a land launch at Clinton Town Beach, Clinton, CT.

    Old Black Point Beach Fireworks will be held at a land launch at Old Black Point Beach, Niantic, CT.

    C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    This rule establishes six safety zones for six fireworks displays. The location of these safety zones are as follows:

    Fireworks Displays Safety Zones 1 Sag Harbor Fire Department Fireworks Location: All waters of the Sag Harbor Bay, Sag Harbor, NY within 140 feet of the land launch site in approximate position 41°00′02″ N., 072°17′02″ W. (NAD 83). 2 Sebonack Golf Club Fireworks Location: All waters of Peconic Bay, Southampton, NY within 600 feet of the land launch site in approximate position 40°54′49.92″ N., 072°27′39.28″ W. (NAD 83). 3 Wood Family Celebration Fireworks Location: All waters of Port Little Peconic Bay within 800 feet of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 40°57′59.05″ N., 072°23′44.93″ W. (NAD 83). 4 Baker Annual Summer Celebration Location: All waters of Flanders Bay near Jamesport, NY within 600 feet of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 40°55′51.84″ N., 072°35′07.92″ W. (NAD 83). 5 Clinton Chamber of Commerce Fireworks Location: All waters of Clinton Harbor within 420 feet of the land launch site in approximate position 41°15′59″ N., 072°31′09″ W. (NAD 83). 6 Old Black Point Beach Fireworks Location: All waters of Long Island Sound, Niantic, CT within 560 feet of the land launch site in approximate positions, 41°17′36.6″ N., 072°13′06.9″ W. (NAD 83).

    These fireworks displays will launch pyrotechnics from either a landsite near a waterway or from a barge on a waterway. Regulated areas, specifically safety zones, are required for these fireworks displays to protect both spectators and participants from the safety hazards created by the fireworks displays, including unexpected pyrotechnics detonation and burning debris.

    This rule prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring, or anchoring within areas specifically designated as a safety zone and restricts vessel movement around the location of the marine event to reduce the safety risks associated with them during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative.

    The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of these safety zones through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the Federal Register, the Local Notice to Mariners, and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The enforcement of these safety zones will be relatively short in duration; (2)persons or vessels desiring to enter a safety zone may do so with permission from the COTP Sector LIS or a designated representative; (3) these safety zones are designed in a way to limit impacts on vessel traffic, permitting vessels to navigate in other portions of the waterways not designated as a safety zone; and (4) the Coast Guard will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule via appropriate means, such as via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners to increase public awareness of these safety zones.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

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

    This temporary final rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit, anchor, or moor within a safety zone during the periods of enforcement, from August 7, 2015 to August 23, 2015. However, this temporary final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the same reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This temporary rule involves the establishment of safety zones. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5 and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T01-0646 to read as follows:
    § 165.T01-0646 Safety Zones; Marine Events Held in the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone.

    (a) Regulations. The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply as well as the following regulations apply to the events listed in the TABLE 1 of § 165.T01-0646.

    (b) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced on the dates and times listed for each event in TABLE 1 to § 165.T01-0646. If the event is delayed by inclement weather, the safety zone will be enforced on the rain date indicated in TABLE 1 of § 165.T01-0646.

    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:

    (1) Designated representative. A “designated representative” is any commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Long Island Sound, to act on his or her behalf.

    (2) Official patrol vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.

    (d) Vessels desiring to enter or operate within a safety zone should contact the COTP or the designated representative via VHF channel 16 or by telephone at (203) 468-4401 to obtain permission to do so. Vessels given permission to enter or operate in a safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or the designated on-scene representative.

    (e) Upon being hailed by an official patrol vessel or the designated representative, by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed. The designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. While members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary will not serve as the designated representative, they may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.

    (f) Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

    Table 1 to § 165.T01-0646 Fireworks Events (1) Sag Harbor Fire Department Fireworks • Date: August 7, 2015.
  • • Rain Date: August 8, 2015.
  • • Time: 9:15 p.m. to 10:45 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of the Sag Harbor Bay, Sag Harbor, NY within 140 feet of the land launch site in approximate position 41°00′02″ N., 072°17′02″ W. (NAD 83).
  • (2) Sebonack Golf Club Fireworks • Date: August 7, 2015.
  • • Rain Date: August 8, 2015.
  • • Time: 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of Peconic Bay, Southampton, NY within 600 feet of the land launch site in approximate position 40°54′49.92″ N., 072°27′39.28″ W. (NAD 83).
  • (3) Wood Family Celebration Fireworks • Date: August 15, 2015.
  • • Rain Date: August 16, 2015.
  • • Time: 9:30 p.m. to 10:50 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of Port Little Peconic Bay within 800 feet of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 40°57′59.05″ N., 072°23′44.93″ W. (NAD 83).
  • (4) Baker Annual Summer Celebration • Date: August 15, 2015.
  • • Rain Date: August 16, 2015.
  • • Time: 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of Flanders Bay near Jamesport, NY within 600 feet of the fireworks barge located in approximate position 40°55′51.84″ N., 072°35′07.92″ W. (NAD 83).
  • (5) Clinton Chamber of Commerce Fireworks • Date: August 22, 2015.
  • • Rain Date: August 23, 2015.
  • • Time: 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of Clinton Harbor within 420 feet of the land launch site in approximate position 41°15′59″ N.; 072°31′09″ W. (NAD 83).
  • (6) Old Black Point Beach Fireworks • Date: August 22, 2015.
  • • Rain Date: August 23, 2015.
  • • Time: 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
  • • Location: All waters of Long Island Sound, Niantic, CT within 560 feet of the land launch site in approximate positions, 41°17′36.6″ N, 072°13′06.9″ W. (NAD 83).
  • Dated: July 29, 2015. E.J. Cubanski, III, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Long Island Sound.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20116 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0699] Safety Zones; Fireworks Events in Captain of the Port New York Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones within the Captain of the Port New York Zone on the specified dates and times. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with fireworks displays. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP).

    DATES:

    The regulation for the safety zones described in 33 CFR 165.160 will be enforced on the dates and times listed in the table in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice, call or email MST1 Daniel Vazquez, Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-4197, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified dates and times as indicated in Table 1 below. This regulation was published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69614).

    Table 1 1. Pyro Engineering, South Ellis Island Safety Zone, 33 CFR 165.160(2.2) • Launch site: A barge located in approximate position 40°41′39.9″ N. 074°02′33.7″ W. (NAD 1983), about 260 yards south of Ellis Island. This Safety Zone is a 240-yard radius from the barge. • Date: September 23, 2015. • Time: 09:30 p.m.-11:00 p.m. 2. Indo American Festival, Pier 16 East River Safety Zone, 33 CFR 165.160(3.11) • Launch site: All waters of the East River south of the Brooklyn Bridge and north of a line drawn from the southwest corner of Pier 3, Brooklyn, to the southeast corner of Pier 6, Manhattan. A barge located in approximate position 40°42′12.5″ N. 074°00′02″ W. (NAD 1983), approximately 200 yards east of Pier 16. This Safety Zone is a 180-yard radius from the barge. • Date: September 13, 2015. • Time: 07:00 p.m.-08:30 p.m. 4. Briggs-Lexus, The Battery, Hudson River Safety Zone, 33 CFR 165.160(5.2) • Launch site: A barge located in approximate position 40°42′00″ N. 074°01′17″ W. (NAD 1983), approximately 500 yards south of The Battery, Manhattan, New York. This Safety Zone is a 360-yard radius from the barge. • Date: October 12, 2015. • Time: 09:50 p.m.-11:00 p.m. 5. Viacom Corporate Celebration, Pier 90, Hudson River Safety Zone, 33 CFR 165.160(5.4) • Launch site: A barge located in approximate position 40°46′11.8″ N. 074°00′14.8″ W. (NAD 1983), approximately 375 yards west of Pier 90, Manhattan, New York. This Safety Zone is a 360-yard radius from the barge. • Date: August 6, 2015. • Time: 09:00 p.m.-09:30 p.m.

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, vessels may not enter the safety zones unless given permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the safety zones but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced notification of enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts.

    If the COTP determines that a safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the safety zone.

    Dated: July 24, 2015. M.H. Day, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20112 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter III [Docket ID ED-2015-OSERS-0070] Final Priority and Definitions—Rehabilitation Training: Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center-Targeted Communities AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Final priority and definitions.

    [CFDA Number: 84.264F.] SUMMARY:

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority and definitions under the Rehabilitation Training program to fund a cooperative agreement to develop and support a Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center for Targeted Communities (VRTAC-TC). The Assistant Secretary may use the priority and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years. We take this action to focus Federal financial assistance on an identified national need. We intend the VRTAC-TC to improve the capacity of State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies and their partners to increase participation levels for individuals with disabilities from low-income communities and to equip these individuals with the skills and competencies needed to obtain high-quality competitive integrated employment.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: The priority and definitions are effective September 14, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Felipe Lulli, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5054, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7425 or by email: [email protected].

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of Program: Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) makes grants to States and public or nonprofit agencies and organizations (including institutions of higher education (IHEs)) to support projects that provide training, traineeships, and technical assistance (TA) designed to increase the numbers of, and improve the skills of, qualified personnel, especially rehabilitation counselors, who are trained to provide vocational, medical, social, and psychological rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities; assist individuals with communication and related disorders; and provide other services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act.

    Program Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 772(a)(1).

    Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 385.

    We published a notice of proposed priority and definitions (NPP) for this competition in the Federal Register on June 26, 2015 (80 FR 36736). That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing the particular priority and definitions. Other than minor, technical revisions, there are no differences between the proposed priority and definitions and the final priority and definitions.

    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, three parties submitted comments.

    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes.

    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priority and definitions since publication of the NPP follows.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that consideration be given under paragraph (c) of the Application Requirements, “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” to plans that have a strong qualitative evaluation component, such as measuring outcomes that include a focus on positive deviance and those factors associated with successful employment outcomes.

    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that qualitative evaluation components should be an important aspect of the evaluation plan for the priority. We believe that the requirements in the priority sufficiently address any concern about strong qualitative evaluation. We decline to require applicants to propose an evaluation plan with a focus on the specific qualitative components that the commenter suggests, as we want applicants to have the flexibility to propose an evaluation plan that is tailored to the applicants' specific proposed projects. However, nothing in the priority precludes applicants from including in their evaluation plan the components suggested by the commenter.

    Changes: None.

    Comment: One commenter suggested we include in the definition of “high-leverage groups with national applicability” a category for individuals with disabilities of employable age who are living in institutional or similar settings. The commenter noted that there are many individuals living in such settings who are waiting for long periods to receive community and employment supports, but who would want or need to work.

    Discussion: We agree that providing community living and employment supports to individuals who are living in institutional or similar settings addresses an important problem, but the priority is not intended to address the lack of community-based supports for individuals residing in these types of settings. Rather, the priority is designed to improve VR participation and employment outcomes for individuals who are living in low-income communities, and for whom poverty creates additional barriers to VR participation. Of course, there may be some overlap with individuals with disabilities who live in community group homes or similar situations in low-income areas. To the extent that these overlaps exist, the individuals highlighted by the commenter would directly benefit from this priority.

    Changes: None.

    Comment: One commenter recommended that a mix of rural and urban settings be considered in selecting the targeted communities because resources, employment options, and other characteristics differ greatly between urban and rural settings.

    Discussion: We agree that the issues facing individuals with disabilities living in rural areas often differ from issues facing individuals with disabilities in urban areas. Residents of rural and remote areas are included in the definition of “high-leverage groups with national applicability,” and therefore could be addressed in the TA provided by the VRTAC-TC. Additionally, in reviewing the TA proposals from the VRTAC-TC, RSA will ensure that the selected targeted communities reflect a wide variety of communities.

    Changes: None.

    Comment: One commenter recommended that we include the analysis of findings and best practices available from the PROMISE (Promoting Readiness of Minors in Social Security Income) grant sites as a first-year activity for the VRTAC, because PROMISE grant sites also seek to establish collaborative, wrap-around services, though for children receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

    Discussion: Nothing in the priority would preclude an applicant from including the review of available information from PROMISE projects in its proposed knowledge development activities. However, please note that while such projects may be able to provide valuable information on lessons learned in the implementation of collaborative service strategies during the first year of the VRTAC-TC, it is unlikely that new findings on best practices will be available during this time period.

    Changes: None.

    Comment: One commenter indicated a concern about the lack of regionally based TA that was formerly provided by the Regional Technical Assistance and Continuing Education (TACE) centers.

    Discussion: We recognize the commenter's concern, and it is one that was raised and addressed in the notice of final priority for the Job-Driven Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center (79 FR 48983). The VRTAC-TC is not intended to provide comprehensive TA to State VR agencies in the way that the TACE centers were intended to do. Instead, the VRTAC-TC will focus on addressing the long-term and systemic issues facing persistently under-served communities across the Nation (including in eight of the nine Census divisions). While we intend that the communities chosen and the strategies developed for responding to their needs will have national applicability, not all State VR agencies will be able to use all of the tools or resources developed by the VRTAC-TC. However, we believe that across RSA's suite of TA investments, the varying needs of State VR agencies will be adequately met, despite RSA's decision not to continue support for the TACE program.

    Changes: None.

    Final Priority:

    The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a priority for a cooperative agreement to establish a Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center for Targeted Communities (VRTAC-TC) to provide technical assistance (TA) and training to upgrade and increase the competency, skills, and knowledge of vocational rehabilitation (VR) counselors and other professionals to assist economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities (as defined in this notice) to achieve competitive integrated employment outcomes.

    The VRTAC-TC will facilitate linkages for the State VR agencies through substantial outreach to partner agencies within targeted communities (as defined in this notice) to increase the resources and key partnerships needed to address the daily living stressors that often result in unsuccessful VR case closures, including childcare needs, homelessness, hunger, safety concerns, interpersonal issues, and lack of transportation, basic or remedial education services, and literacy services.

    TA and Training Deliverables

    The VRTAC-TC must, at a minimum, develop and provide training, TA, and opportunities for ongoing discussion in each of the following areas to rehabilitation professionals and staff from both (1) the State VR agencies and partner agencies who are serving the targeted communities, and (2) diverse service providers throughout the Nation, including State VR agency staff, who work with high-leverage groups with national applicability (as defined in this notice) in other economically disadvantaged communities similar to the targeted communities that are the focus of this priority:

    (a) Developing and maintaining formal and informal partnerships and relationships with relevant stakeholders (including, but not limited to, State and local social service and community development agencies, correctional facilities, community rehabilitation programs (CRPs), school systems, and employers) for the following coordinated activities:

    (1) Increasing referrals to the State VR system for economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities from at least two high-leverage groups with national applicability residing in each of the targeted communities; and

    (2) Facilitating the provision of support services by stakeholders to VR consumers and applicants from at least two high-leverage groups with national applicability residing in each of the targeted communities;

    (b) Developing and implementing outreach policies and procedures based on evidence-based and promising practices that ensure that consumers with disabilities from each of the targeted communities are located, identified, and evaluated for services; and

    (c) Developing and implementing collaborative and coordinated service strategies designed to increase the number of consumers with disabilities from targeted communities who are served by the State VR agencies, receive support services from other stakeholders, and obtain, maintain, regain, or advance in competitive integrated employment.

    Project Activities:

    To meet the requirements of this priority, the VRTAC-TC must, at a minimum, conduct the following activities:

    Knowledge Development Activities

    (a) Within the first year, survey each of the 80 State VR agencies regarding the action steps, including emerging, promising, and evidence-based practices utilized, that the VR agencies have previously used to address substandard participation levels and performance outcomes achieved by residents of targeted communities within their States;

    (b) Within the first year, conduct a literature review of emerging, promising, and evidence-based practices relevant to the work of the VRTAC-TC. The review should include, at a minimum, research on place-based interventions and the particular needs of economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities;

    (c) By the end of the first year, post on its Web site the results of its survey and literature review; and

    (d) Categorize, analyze, and provide an opportunity for interactive commentary by VR professionals about all information posted on its Web site in order to identify the workforce participation challenges and resources that underserved individuals with disabilities (as defined in this notice) from economically disadvantaged communities tend to have in common and to identify examples of the types of VR services that have been used to address their employment and training needs. This interactive process should facilitate both evaluating and adjusting the ongoing and planned interventions within the targeted communities and the development of effective practices for the nationwide VR community.

    Targeted Community Selection and Development

    (a) In the first year, survey each of the 80 State VR agencies to identify two or more groups of underserved individuals with disabilities from one or more targeted communities in each of their respective States. All identified targeted communities in each State must meet the eligibility requirements for designation as an Empowerment Zone under either 24 CFR 598.100 or 7 CFR 25.100;

    (b) Develop intensive TA (as defined in this notice) proposals for at least 20 targeted communities to present to the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA). The proposals must:

    (1) Include communities that reflect national diversity with respect to State, region, and culture. Communities must be situated in at least 12 States and territories located within no fewer than eight of the nine Census Divisions (State groupings) defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (For more information on Census Divisions, see www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_census_divreg.html). No more than two targeted communities may be located within any one State or territory, and no more than four may be located within any one Census Division; and

    (2) Include the following information for each targeted community recommended:

    (A) A map that shows the targeted community's boundaries and relevant demographic characteristics, including poverty concentration;

    (B) Documentation that within the targeted community's boundaries:

    (i) The median household income is below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level; and

    (ii) The rate of unemployment is at or above the national annual average rate;

    (C) A performance chart of State VR agency data that documents substandard participation levels and performance outcomes achieved by VR consumers and applicants from high-leverage groups with national applicability from the targeted communities in comparison to the State's overall performance that includes the following for all relevant groups:

    (i) The number of applicants and percentage of the overall population;

    (ii) The number and percentage of individuals determined eligible;

    (iii) The number and percentage of individuals receiving VR services pursuant to an individualized plan for employment;

    (iv) The number and percentage of individuals whose service records were closed without employment; and

    (v) The number and percentage of individuals whose service records were closed after achieving employment;

    (D) A brief (one or two pages) overview by the State VR agency addressing the following for high-leverage groups with national applicability from the targeted communities:

    (i) The factors that the agency believes have contributed to the substandard performance outlined in the chart; and

    (ii) Action steps that the VR agency has previously taken to address these performance gaps;

    (E) A two- or three-page proposed intensive TA work plan by the VRTAC-TC that addresses:

    (i) The performance gaps summarized in the chart required by paragraph (b)(2)(C) of this section;

    (ii) The barriers to employment described in the State VR agency's overview statement required by paragraph (b)(2)(D) of this section;

    (iii) The strategies being proposed to remediate the identified barriers in the targeted community;

    (iv) The potential replicability of the strategies in the work plan for targeted communities in other parts of the State; and

    (v) The potential to replicate the strategies in the work plan for targeted communities in other States; and

    (F) Letters of support from the State VR agency and partners in the community (e.g., employers, secondary and post-secondary educational institutions, and community leaders) stating their intent to work cooperatively with the VRTAC-TC should the targeted community be chosen as a recipient of intensive TA.

    Targeted Community Timeline

    (a) By the end of the first year, provide RSA with, at minimum, 10 proposals (as described in paragraph (b) of the “Targeted Community Selection and Development” section of this priority) from which RSA will select six to receive intensive TA from the VRTAC-TC;

    (b) By no later than the third quarter of the second year provide RSA with, at minimum, 10 proposals (as described in paragraph (b) of the “Targeted Community Selection and Development” section of this priority) in addition to the proposals described in paragraph (a) of this section, from which RSA will select six to receive intensive TA from the VRTAC-TC;

    (c) By no later than the first quarter of the second year, begin providing intensive TA to VR staff, CRPs, employers, education and training entities, and community leaders, as appropriate, in at least three of the targeted communities approved by RSA in the first year;

    (d) By no later than the third quarter of the second year, be providing intensive TA to VR staff, CRPs, employers, education and training entities, and community leaders, as appropriate, in all targeted communities approved by RSA in the first year;

    (e) By no later than the first quarter of the third year, begin providing intensive TA to VR staff, CRPs, employers, education and training entities, and community leaders, as appropriate, in at least three of the targeted communities approved by RSA in the second year; and

    (f) By no later than the third quarter of the third year, be providing intensive TA to VR staff, CRPs, employers, education and training entities, and community leaders, as appropriate, to all targeted communities approved by RSA in the second year.

    Technical Assistance Activities

    (a) At a minimum, provide intensive TA that is aligned with the proposals described in paragraph (b) of the “Targeted Community Selection and Development” section of this priority to the VR agency within each of the targeted communities on the following topic areas, as appropriate:

    (1) Using labor market data and occupational information to provide individuals with disabilities from high-leverage groups with national applicability who reside in targeted communities with information about job demand, skills matching, supports, education, training, and career options;

    (2) Providing disability-related consultation and services to employers about competitive integrated employment of economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities from high-leverage groups with national applicability;

    (3) Building and maintaining relationships in targeted communities with industry leaders, employer associations, and prospective employers of economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities from high-leverage groups with national applicability;

    (4) Building and maintaining relationships with secondary and post-secondary institutions and CRPs that serve to support transition activities and leverage programs and providers of basic education, remedial learning, and literacy services to the targeted communities and are committed to providing individualized wrap-around VR services that are attuned to the remedial and ongoing support services needed by economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities;

    (5) Building and maintaining alliances with schools, community organizations, and business leaders with a heightened understanding of the acculturation and assimilation issues within the targeted communities regarding culture, religion, language, dialect, and socioeconomic status that might be impeding full participation of the economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities from high-leverage groups with national applicability; and

    (6) Developing services for providers of customized training and other types of training that are directly responsive to employer needs and hiring requirements for economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities from high-leverage groups with national applicability;

    (b) By the end of the first year, post on its Web site State agency overview statements specific to high-leverage groups with national applicability along with related VR research studies identified by the VRTAC-TC;

    (c) Establish no fewer than two communities of practice with the following areas of focus:

    (1) One community of practice should be designed to specifically support State VR agency and related agency staff and management serving targeted communities; and

    (2) One community of practice should be designed to be open to all staff and management serving economically disadvantaged communities nationwide and to address the employment needs of individuals with disabilities in those communities;

    (d) Ensure that the communities of practice described in paragraph (c) of this section focus on partnerships across service systems designed to develop, implement, adjust, support, and evaluate VR processes and strategies for promoting competitive integrated employment for high-leverage groups with national applicability from targeted communities; and

    (e) Develop and make available to State VR agencies and their associated rehabilitation professionals and service providers a range of targeted TA and general TA products and services designed to increase VR participation levels and outcomes achieved by individuals with disabilities from targeted communities. This TA must include, at a minimum, the following activities:

    (1) Developing and maintaining a state-of-the-art information technology (IT) platform sufficient to support Webinars, teleconferences, video conferences, and other virtual methods of dissemination of information and TA; and

    Note:

    All products produced by the VRTAC-TC must meet government and industry-recognized standards for accessibility, including section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. In meeting these requirements, the VRTAC-TC may either develop a new platform or system, or modify existing platforms or systems, so long as the requirements of the priority are met.

    (2) Ensuring that all TA products are sent to the National Center for Rehabilitation Training Materials, including course curricula, audiovisual materials, Webinars, and examples of emerging and best practices related to this priority;

    (f) During the fourth quarter of both the second year and the fourth year, develop and implement year-end national State VR agency forums dedicated to discussing the progress and lessons learned from the targeted communities; and

    (g) During the fourth quarter of the fifth year, present a national results meeting to State VR agencies to review the data collected, best practices developed, and lessons learned from the intensive intervention sites served within the 12 targeted communities, as well as the communities of practice described in paragraph (c) of this section.

    Coordination Activities

    (a) Facilitate communication and coordination on an ongoing basis with other Federal agencies, State agencies, and local government workforce development partners, as well as private and nonprofit social service agencies and other VR TA centers funded by RSA, in order to:

    (1) Maximize existing individual and community assets to effectively address socioeconomic issues that impact employment and overall well-being;

    (2) Create a mechanism for partner organizations and community members to participate in the VR program planning process, including brainstorming and vetting new ideas and approaches to VR service provision;

    (3) Create an active online community of practice that addresses the needs of participants;

    (4) Organize the online community of practice to address both general barriers to employment faced by individuals with disabilities from targeted communities, and barriers to employment faced by individuals with disabilities from diverse high-leverage groups with national applicability including, but not limited to, adjudicated adults and youth, persons with multiple disabilities, and high school dropouts; and

    (5) Provide greater access for targeted communities to culturally relevant VR services provided by State VR agency personnel with the support of VRTAC-TC staff and community partners;

    (b) Communicate and coordinate, on an ongoing basis, with the communities of practice described in paragraph (c) of the “Technical Assistance Activities” section of this priority; and

    (c) Maintain ongoing communications with the RSA project officer.

    Application Requirements:

    To be funded under this priority, applicants must meet the following application requirements. RSA encourages innovative approaches to meet these requirements, which are:

    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application, under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will—

    (1) Recruit State VR agencies to identify targeted communities with intensive TA needs to take part in the services supported by this priority, including a detailed description of the primary factors and processes proposed to facilitate the identification and selection of these communities;

    (2) Address State VR agencies' capacity to meet the employment and training needs of individuals with disabilities from high-leverage groups with national applicability from targeted communities. To meet this requirement, the applicant must:

    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of emerging and best practices in conducting outreach and providing VR services to applicants and consumers from economically disadvantaged communities; and

    (ii) Demonstrate knowledge of emerging and best practices in conducting outreach and providing VR services to high-leverage groups with national applicability that are frequently reported as underserved or achieving substandard employment outcomes in statewide comprehensive needs assessments, VR-related research studies, or monitoring reports prepared by RSA pursuant to periodic onsite monitoring visits; and

    (3) Result in increases both in the number of individuals with disabilities from high-leverage groups with national applicability receiving services from State VR agencies within targeted communities and the number and quality of employment outcomes in competitive integrated employment achieved by these individuals;

    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application, under “Quality of Project Services,” how the proposed project will—

    (1) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes;

    (ii) A plan for how the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes; and

    (iii) A plan for communicating and coordinating with key staff in State VR agencies, State and local partner programs, RSA partners such as the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation and the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind, and other TA Centers and relevant programs within the Departments of Education, Labor, and Commerce;

    (2) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;

    (3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based and promising practices;

    (4) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project;

    (5) Develop products and implement services to maximize the project's efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes; and

    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration;

    (c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” how the proposed project will—

    (1) Measure and track the effectiveness of the TA provided. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe its proposed approach to—

    (i) Collecting data on the effectiveness of the TA activity from State VR agencies, partners, or other sources, as appropriate; and

    (ii) Analyzing data and determining the effectiveness of the TA provided for at least two high-leverage groups with national applicability residing in each of the 12 targeted communities. This process includes evaluation of the effectiveness of current practices within the selected targeted communities throughout the project period, with a goal of demonstrating substantial progress towards achieving outcome parity for the high-leverage groups and other targeted groups with the State VR agency's overall performance with respect to number of applications received and processed, eligibility assessments completed, and both the number and quality of employment outcomes achieved;

    (2) Conduct an evaluation of progress made by all of the targeted communities on an annual basis. At the end of the final year of the project, the VRTAC-TC will submit a final report on the project performance to detail the outcomes of individuals with disabilities in the targeted communities. The evaluation will utilize multiple data points as evidence of progress as compared to the baseline established at the beginning of the project, including State VR agency reported data, changes in State policies and procedures, customer surveys, and State personnel input, as well as any other relevant stakeholder input; and

    (3) Collect and analyze preliminary quantitative and qualitative data of VR services facilitated and the outcomes achieved by economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities in at least one other part of the State in which a targeted community is located. State VR personnel from the targeted communities approved by RSA within the first year will serve as trainers for colleagues in other parts of the State by applying or modifying the strategies learned from the VRTAC-TC;

    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—

    (1) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to provide TA to State VR agencies and their partners for each of the activities in this priority and to achieve the project's intended outcomes;

    (2) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

    (3) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits;

    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—

    (1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

    (i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and

    (ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;

    (2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated to the project and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes, including an assurance that such personnel will have adequate availability to ensure timely communications with stakeholders and RSA;

    (3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality; and

    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of State and local personnel, TA providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

    Types of Priorities:

    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

    Final Definitions:

    The Assistant Secretary announces the following definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.

    Economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities means individuals with disabilities who are from a household with a median household income below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level; individuals receiving Federal financial assistance through Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), or Supplemental Security Income (SSI); or individuals residing in public housing and participating in the Section 8 housing-choice voucher program.

    General technical assistance (TA) means TA and information provided to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This category of TA also includes information or products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the TA center's Web site by independent users. Brief communications by TA center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also considered universal, general TA.

    High-leverage groups with national applicability means groups of individuals with disabilities who are frequently identified by State VR agencies throughout the Nation in their statewide comprehensive needs assessments as groups comprised of individuals that are either underserved or who have achieved substandard performance. Examples of these groups include, but are not limited to, the following populations:

    (A) Residents of rural and remote communities;

    (B) Adjudicated adults and youth;

    (C) Youth with disabilities in foster care;

    (D) Individuals with disabilities receiving Federal financial assistance through TANF;

    (E) Culturally diverse populations, e.g., African Americans, Native Americans, and non-English speaking populations;

    (F) High school dropouts and functionally illiterate consumers;

    (G) Persons with multiple disabilities, e.g., deaf-blindness, HIV/AIDS-substance abuse; and

    (H) SSI and SSDI recipients, including subminimum-wage employees.

    Intensive technical assistance (TA) means TA services often provided on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the VRTAC-TC staff and the TA recipient. Intensive TA should result in changes to policy, programs, practices, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.

    Targeted community means any economically disadvantaged community that qualifies as an Empowerment Zone under either 24 CFR 598.100 or 7 CFR 25.100, and in which (a) the median household income is below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level; (b) the unemployment rate is at or above the national average; and (c) as a group, individuals with disabilities have historically sought, been determined eligible for, or received VR services from a State VR agency at less than 65 percent of the average rate for the State VR agency, or who have achieved competitive integrated employment outcomes subsequent to receiving VR services at 65 percent or less of the State VR agency's overall employment outcome level.

    Targeted technical assistance (TA) means TA services based on needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively individualized. A relationship is established between the TA recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can also be considered targeted, specialized TA.

    Underserved individuals with disabilities means individuals with disabilities who, because of disability, place of residence, geographic location, age, race, gender, or socioeconomic status, have not historically sought, been determined eligible for, or received VR services at a rate of 65 percent or more of the State's overall service level groups. Underserved individuals include, but are not limited to, subminimum wage employees; adjudicated youth and adults; culturally diverse populations such as African Americans, Native Americans, and non-English speaking persons; individuals living in rural areas; and persons with multiple disabilities such as deaf-blindness.

    This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

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

    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

    We are issuing the final priority and definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

    The benefits of the Rehabilitation Training program have been well established over the years through the successful completion of similar projects. The priority and definitions would better prepare State VR agency personnel to assist individuals with disabilities living in targeted communities to achieve competitive integrated employment in today's challenging labor market.

    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program. Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: August 7, 2015. Michael K. Yudin, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20014 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Part 111 Standards Governing the Design of Curbside Mailboxes AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service is replacing USPS STD 7B, which governs the design of curbside mailboxes, with new USPS STD 7C. The new STD 7C was developed internally to meet the operational requirements of the Postal Service.

    DATES:

    Effective: September 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written inquiries regarding the new standards should be mailed to U.S. Postal Service, Delivery Operations ATTN: Vanessa Lawrence, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, Room 7142, Washington, DC 20260-7142.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vanessa Lawrence, ([email protected]), (202) 268-2567.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview

    On April 14, 2015, at 80 FR 19914, the U.S. Postal Service proposed to adopt a new USPS STD 7C, to replace USPS STD 7B which currently governs the design of city and rural curbside mailboxes. Pursuant to the Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®) 508.3.2.1, USPS STD 7 applies to mailboxes manufactured to be erected at the edge of a roadway or curbside of a street and to be served by a carrier from a vehicle on any city route, rural route, or highway contract route. Copies of USPS STD 7, or other information about the manufacture of curbside boxes may be obtained from USPS Engineering, 8403 Lee Highway, Merrifield, VA 22082-8101 (see DMM 608.8.0). We proposed this action because the current standard, effective February 8, 2001 (66 FR 9509-9522), prescribes designs that in several respects are no longer ideal for the operational requirements of the Postal Service. As detailed in our proposal, the design and performance requirements for new versions of both locking and non-locking curbside mailboxes were included in the proposed USPS STD 7C. As proposed, the new STD 7C most notably:

    • Provided design parameters for a new version of locked and non-locked mailbox designs that can accommodate the insertion and removal of a test gauge measuring 7 inches high by 13 inches wide by 16 inches deep.

    • To thwart quick-strike attacks, introduced the requirement that the new locked mailbox designs must pass a 3-minute physical security test of the customer access door (using commonly available hand and pry tools) and a 3-minute manual test to ensure that no mail item can be removed through the front carrier access door.

    • Reaffirmed the prohibition of any style of locks, locking devices, or inserts that require the carrier to use a key or restrict or reduce the interior opening of the mailbox, once the front door has been fully opened for any approved non-locked curbside mailbox. (To assure the effectiveness of the new minimum parcel capacity requirement under USPS STD 7C, internal obstructions that prevent this requirement from being met would result in a suspension of service when the situation is identified.)

    • Introduced minimal door catch and signal flag force tests to ensure those components meet prescribed limits.

    • Updated the provisions regarding Application Requirements and Approval or Disapproval to establish a new 180-day time limit for the submission of a mailbox for security testing (if applicable), and final review after the manufacturer has received approval of a design upon preliminary review.

    • Provided updated quality requirements in a new section exclusively concerned with Quality Management System Provisions.

    • Introduced provisions concerning the use of both USPS and third-party intellectual property, including the requirement that manufacturers agree not to use USPS marks without USPS approval, have sole responsibility for acquiring all necessary licenses for the use of third-party intellectual property, and bear all liability concerning the use of third-party intellectual property regarding any USPS approved mailboxes.

    We believe that instituting these mailbox design options will allow for improvement in the Postal Service's capacity for this mode of delivery as vendors choose to produce these curbside mailboxes, and the mailboxes come into widespread use.

    As a further matter, we note that the addition of these new design options would not have any impact on any currently approved USPS STD 7B product. Any mailbox manufacturer wishing to seek approval for either or both of the new locked and non-locked design options introduced by USPS STD 7C would follow the process detailed in the new standard.

    Comments and Analysis

    We received comments from two firms involved in the manufacture of mailboxes. One set of comments focused on the security tests proposed for the new locked, large-capacity designs. The other set of comments covered a broader range of topics, including the timeframe established for the mailbox review process, the number and type of drawings required to accompany a mailbox submitted for approval, certain unintentional errors in the mailbox design figures, the dimensions and color of the mailbox flag, the design and dimensions of the slot for locked mailbox designs, and the need to provide information regarding how to obtain permission for the use of proprietary USPS marks. Our response to these comments is as follows.

    Security Tests

    With regard to the security testing requirements for locked, large capacity mailboxes set forth in section 4.12 of the proposed standard, one set of comments suggested that we should further standardize the testing process by providing a specific list of “pry tools, defined even by specific brands and model available in the marketplace,” to be used in the tests. We declined to accept this suggestion, in the belief that the current, more generic description of “tools such as screwdrivers, flat plates, knives, pry bars, vise grips, pliers, chisels, and punches'' was adequate for testing purposes.

    The same set of comments also suggested that the maximum length of pry tools used for testing should be reduced from 18 inches to reflect the more typical dimensions of such instruments (as well as establish a more reasonable balance between security and cost), and that the manual test for removal of items through an opened carrier access door should specify that no tools were to be used. These suggestions were accepted. The maximum length of pry tools for testing purposes was reduced to 12 inches, and it is specified that no tools were to be used in the manual test.

    Mailbox Review Process

    The second set of comments questioned certain aspects of the mailbox review process in section 6.1 of the proposed standard, including the 180-day time limit for submitting a mailbox for final review after receiving preliminary approval, and the requirement that two paper drawing sets be provided. These comments addressed the timeframe required to move from a conceptual design to a production unit that can be released for tooling, as well as complete the third-party testing process. The comments also questioned the reliance on 2-D paper drawings, in view of the growing reliance on 3-D electronic drawings for the manufacturing process. These suggestions were accepted. The 180-day time limit was extended to one year, and the requirement for two paper drawings has been replaced by a requirement for one paper drawing set and one electronic drawing set.

    Mailbox Design Figures

    This set of comments also questioned the width of the mailbox door handles shown in design Figure 5 of the proposed standards, and suggested that they reflected a change from the current standards of USPS STD 7B. No such dimensional changes were intended, and Figure 5 has been reworked accordingly.

    Mailbox Flag Requirements

    These comments also suggested the need for clarification of the requirements concerning the flag dimension for traditional mailboxes in Figure 1A, and more specificity regarding the requirement in section 3.9 that the color of the flag present a “clear contrast” with the predominant color of the mailbox. These suggestions were not accepted. We believe that such changes to longstanding requirements for boxes already approved under former STD 7B would not be appropriate in this context.

    Mailbox Slot Requirements

    These comments further questioned the requirement in section 3.1.2.1 that the slot for a locked mailbox measure at least 1.75 inches high by 10 inches wide, suggesting that other shapes (such as a modified trapezoid) that allowed the insertion of the test gauges should be acceptable. This change was not accepted. We believe that the dimensions as proposed will facilitate the delivery of mail to the new boxes by simplifying the carrier's task.

    Intellectual Property

    With regard to the rules concerning the use of intellectual property in section 3.14 of the proposed standard, these comments also inquired how a manufacturer might obtain a “license” to use USPS marks. In response, we have included the online address of the Postal Service's Rights and Permissions information in a footnote to that section.

    For these reasons, the Postal Service has determined to replace USPS STD 7B with USPS STD 7C as set forth in the Appendix to this document.

    List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111

    Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.

    The Postal Service adopts the following changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:

    PART 111—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301- 307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.

    2. Remove U.S. Postal Service Standard 7B and add U.S. Postal Service Standard 7C in its place to read as follows: Appendix U.S. Postal Service Standard 7C Mailboxes, Curbside (USPS STD 7C) 1. Scope and Classification

    1.1 Scope—This standard covers all curbside mailboxes. Curbside mailboxes are defined as any design made to be served by a carrier from a vehicle on any city, rural, or highway contract route. This standard is not applicable to mailboxes intended for door delivery service (see 8.1).

    1.2 Classifications—Based on their design, curbside mailboxes are classified as either:

    • Non-Locked Mailboxes:

    T—Traditional—Full or Limited Service (see 3.1.1, 3.1.1.1, and Figure 1A).

    C—Contemporary—Full or Limited Service (see 3.1.1 and 3.1.1.2).

    LC—Large Capacity—Full or Limited Service (see 3.1.1, 3.1.1.3, and Figure 1B).

    • Locked Mailboxes:

    LMS—Locked, Mail Slot Design—Full or Limited Service (see 3.1.2, 3.1.2.1, and Figures 2A and 2B).

    LLC—Locked, Large Capacity/USPS Security Tested—Full or Limited Service (see 3.1.2, 3.1.2.2, and Figure 3).

    1.3 Approved Models

    1.3.1 Approved Models—A list of manufacturers whose mailboxes have been approved by the United States Postal Service (USPS) will be published annually in the Postal Bulletin. A copy of the most current list of approved models is also available from the office listed in 1.3.2.

    1.3.2 Interested Manufacturers— Manufacturing standards and current information about the manufacture of curbside mailboxes may be obtained by writing to:

    USPS ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, DELIVERY AND RETAIL TECHNOLOGY, 8403 LEE HIGHWAY, MERRIFIELD, VA 22082-8101. 2. Applicable Documents

    2.1 Specifications and Standards—Except where specifically noted, the specifications set forth herein apply to all curbside mailbox designs.

    2.2 Government Document—The following document of the latest issue is incorporated by reference as part of this standard: United States Postal Service Postal Operations Manual (POM).

    Copies of the applicable sections of the POM can be obtained from USPS Delivery and Retail, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260-6200.

    2.3 Non-Government Documents—The following documents of the latest issue are incorporated by reference as part of this standard:

    American Standards for Testing Materials (ASTM) • ASTM G85 Standard Practice for Modified Salt Spray (Fog) Testing • ASTM D968 Standard Test Methods for Abrasion Resistance of Organic Coatings by Falling Abrasive Copies of the ASTM documents can be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Underwriters Laboratories (UL) • UL 771 Night Depositories (Rain Test Only) Copies of the UL document can be obtained from Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096. 3. Requirements

    3.1 General Design—Mailboxes must meet regulations and requirements as stipulated by USPS collection and delivery, operation, and policy (see 2.2). This includes carrier door operation (see 3.3), flag operation (see 3.6), incoming mail openings and the retrieval of outgoing mail (see below in 3.1). The manufacturer determines the opening style, design, and size; however, the carrier must be able to deposit the customer's mail. Outgoing mail for full service designs must be able to be pulled straight out of the mailbox without interference from protrusions, hardware, etc. Mailboxes must be capable of passing the applicable testing requirements (see Section 4). Mailboxes must not be made of any transparent, toxic, or flammable material (see 3.2). The mailbox must protect mail from potential water damage which may result from wet weather conditions (see 4.4). Any advertising on a mailbox or its support is prohibited. Additional specific requirements follow.

    3.1.1 Non-Locked Designs (Limited and Full Service)—Mailbox designs that conform to any of the three design types specified in 3.1.1 will be classified as non-locked with the appropriate sub-designation. Designs incorporating a carrier signal flag (see 3.6) will be classified as full-service mailboxes. Designs with no flag will be classified as limited service (see 3.11). As specified in 3.4, a rear door is permitted to enable the customer to remove mail without standing in the street. The use of any ancillary items (i.e., locks, locking devices, or inserts) that either require the carrier to use a key to gain access to a non-locked mailbox or that restrict or reduce the interior opening of the mailbox, once the front door has been fully opened, is prohibited. There is no local Postmaster approval exception for this prohibition.

    3.1.1.1 Traditional Designs (Limited and Full Service)—Mailbox designs that conform to Figure 1A and meet the limited capacity requirements specified in 4.2.1 will be classified as Traditional (T).

    3.1.1.2 Contemporary Designs (Limited and Full Service)—Mailbox designs that do not conform to the dome-rectangular shape of Traditional designs but meet the limited capacity requirements specified in 4.2.1, while not exceeding the maximum dimensions of Figure 1A, will be classified as Contemporary (C).

    3.1.1.3 Large Capacity Designs (Limited and Full Service)—Mailbox designs that conform to Figure 1B and meet the expanded capacity requirements specified in 4.2.2 will be classified as Large Capacity (LC).

    3.1.2 Locked Designs—Mailbox designs that conform to either of the two design types specified in 3.1.2 will be classified as Locked with the appropriate sub-designation.

    3.1.2.1 Locked, Mail Slot Designs (Limited and Full Service)—Mailbox designs that conform to either Figure 2A or 2B and meet the limited-capacity requirements specified in 4.2.1 will be classified as Locked, Mail Slot Design (LMS). This locking design option provides non-USPS-tested security for the customer's incoming mail. Although the shape and design are less restrictive, these Locked mailbox designs must meet the same applicable functional requirements. Designs having a slot for incoming mail must be at least 1.75 inches high by 10 inches wide. If a slot has a protective flap, it must operate inward to ensure mail can be inserted in a horizontal manner without requiring any additional effort by the carriers (see Figure 2B). The slot must be positioned on the front side of the mailbox facing the street. In addition, the slot must be clearly visible and directly accessible by mail carriers. Any designs that allow for outgoing mail must meet all applicable requirements of this standard.

    3.1.2.1.1 Full Service—Locked mailbox designs of this class allow for both incoming and outgoing mail as depicted in Figure 2A. Both incoming and outgoing mail functionality must be located behind a single carrier service door as shown in Figure 2A. While it is preferred 1 that the outgoing mail function be handled via use of the backside of the front door, any alternate use of a separate outgoing mail compartment, such as beneath or side-by-side with the incoming mail compartment, is permitted provided that no additional carrier service is introduced. All designs must allow the carrier direct access to grasp and retrieve the outgoing mail.

    1 The term `preferred' as used throughout this document in conjunction with any requirement implies that compliance is desired but not mandatory.

    3.1.2.1.2 Limited Service—Locked mailbox designs of this class allow only for incoming mail as shown in Figure 2B.

    3.1.2.2 Locked, Large Capacity/USPS-Security-Tested Designs (Limited and Full Service)—Mailbox designs that conform to Figure 3 and meet both the expanded capacity requirements specified in 4.2.2 and security testing specified in 4.12 will be classified as Locked, Large Capacity/USPS-Security-Tested (LLC).

    3.1.2.2.1 Full Service—Locked mailbox designs of this class allow for both incoming and outgoing mail as depicted in Figure 3. Both incoming and outgoing mail functionality must be located behind a single carrier service door as shown in Figure 3. While it is preferred 1 that the outgoing mail function be handled via use of the backside of the front door, any alternate use of a separate outgoing mail compartment, such as beneath or side-by-side with the incoming mail compartment, is permitted provided that no additional carrier service is introduced. All designs must allow the carrier direct access to grasp and retrieve the outgoing mail.

    3.1.2.2.2 Limited Service—Locked mailbox designs of this class allow only for incoming mail. Refer to the two Locked mailbox feature exceptions linked to Note 10 of Figure 3.

    3.1.3 Mailbox Accessories—Decorative art and devices can be attached to the exterior of approved mailbox designs, provided they do not interfere with mail delivery or present a safety hazard. Devices can also be mounted in the interior of approved mailboxes, provided they do not cause the intended mailbox to fail either capacity test described in 4.2, and do not interfere with mail delivery or present a safety hazard. Any advertising on a mailbox or its support is prohibited. Unrestricted spring-loaded devices and designs are prohibited. Auxiliary flags or devices used to signal the customer that the mail has arrived must operate automatically without requiring additional carrier effort.

    3.2 Materials—Ferrous or nonferrous metal, wood (restrictions apply), plastic, or other materials may be used, as long as their thickness, form, mechanical properties, and chemical properties adequately meet the operational, structural, and performance requirements set forth in this standard. Materials used must not be toxic, flammable or transparent.

    3.2.1 Mailbox Floor—The entire bottom area of all mailboxes, where mail would rest, must be fabricated to prevent mail from damage due to condensation or moisture. Except for the internal mail compartment of locked style mailboxes, all designs must not present a lip or protrusion that would prevent the mail from being inserted or pulled straight out of the mailbox. The surface of the floor cannot be made of wood material. The floor must be ribbed as shown in Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, and 3, or dimpled, embossed, or otherwise fabricated provided the resulting surface area (touching mail) does not exceed the boundary of a square with sides of 0.25 inch (per dimple or impression) and is a minimum of 0.12 inch high on centers not exceeding 1 inch. A mat insert having a raised surface contour may be used for the internal mail compartment of locked style mailboxes only (see Figures 2A, 2B, and 3).

    3.2.2 Carrier Signal Flag—The carrier signal flag cannot be made of wood. Plastic is the preferred material.

    3.2.3 Door Handle—The door handle cannot be made of wood. Plastic is the preferred material.

    3.3 Carrier Service Door -There must be only one carrier service door that must provide access for mail delivery and collection at the unit and meet USPS delivery operational requirements (see 2.2). The door must meet the applicable testing requirements specified in 4.3. The carrier service door must operate freely and solely by pulling outward and downward with a convenient handle or knob. The design of the door, including hinges and handles must provide protection against wind, rain, sleet, or snow (see 4.4). Door latches must hold the door closed but allow easy opening and closing requiring no more than 5 pounds of force. The action of the latch must be a positive mechanical one not relying solely on friction of the hinge parts. The door must not be spring-loaded. Magnetic latches are acceptable provided adequate closure power is maintained during ambient conditions specified in 4.7 and applicable testing described in Section 4. It is preferred that by either tactile sensation or sound (i.e., a snap or click) carriers are alerted that the door is properly shut. The door, once opened, must remain in the open position until the carrier pushes it closed. The door must rotate a minimum of 100 degrees when opened and it is preferred that the maximum rotation be limited to 120 degrees or less. When in a fully opened and rest position, the opening angle of the door cannot measure more than 180 degrees. No protrusions other than the handle or knob, door catch, alternate flag design, decorative features or markings are permitted on the carrier service door. Protrusions of any kind that reduce the usable volume within the mailbox when closed are not acceptable. See 3.1.2 for carrier service door requirements for Locked mailbox designs.

    3.3.1 Handle or Knob—The handle or knob must have adequate accessibility to permit quickly grasping and pulling it with one hand (with or without gloves) to open the door. The handle or knob must be located within the top 1/3 of the door. Various acceptable handle and knob designs with required dimensions are depicted in Figure 5. Other designs may be acceptable provided they allow enough finger clearance and surface area for carriers to grasp.

    3.4 Rear Doors—Both locking and non-locking mailbox designs may have rear doors.

    3.4.1 Non-Locking Mailbox Designs—These mailbox designs may have a rear door, provided that it does not interfere with the normal delivery and collection operation provided by the carrier, require the carrier to perform any unusual operations, or prevent the applicable capacity test gauge from fully inserting. The rear door must not be susceptible to being forced open as a result of large mail items such as newspapers and parcels being inserted through the carrier service door. The rear door must meet the applicable testing requirements specified in 4.

    3.4.2 Locking Mailbox Designs—These designs must have a customer access door that may be located as shown in Figures 2A, 2B, and 3 on the rear wall of the mailbox. However, for locking mailbox designs, the customer access door may be located on a side wall. For locking designs submitted for approval under 3.1.2.2, this door must be subject to the security test requirement in 4.12.

    3.5 Locks—Locked mailbox designs, which are submitted for approval under 3.1.2.2, must meet the security test requirements of 4.12 to ensure that incoming mail is accessible only by the customer to the performance level required. The use of locks on all non-locked mailbox designs is prohibited. Manufacturers must include the following statement in their instructions to customers:

    IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAIL CARRIERS TO OPEN MAILBOXES THAT ARE LOCKED, ACCEPT KEYS FOR THIS PURPOSE, OR LOCK MAILBOXES AFTER DELIVERY OF THE MAIL.

    3.6 Carrier Signal Flag—Non-locked and locked mailbox designs classified as Full Service must have a carrier signal flag. While it is preferred that the flag design be one of the approved concepts depicted in Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, 3, and 4, alternates will be considered for approval if all other dimensional and test requirements are otherwise met. As shown in each figure, the flag must be mounted on the right side when facing the mailbox from the front. The flag must not require a lift of more than 2 pounds of force to retract. Additionally, when actuated (signaling outgoing mail), the flag must remain in position until retracted by the carrier. The color of the flag must be in accordance with the requirements described in 3.9. The operating mechanism of the flag must not require lubrication and must continue to operate properly and positively (without binding or excessive free play) after being subjected to the test described in Section 4. Optionally, the flag may incorporate a self-lowering feature that causes it to automatically retract when the carrier service door is opened provided no additional effort is required of the carrier. The self-lowering feature cannot present protrusions or attachments and must not interfere with delivery operations in any manner or present hazardous features as specified in 3.1.

    3.7 Marking—The mailbox must bear two inscriptions on the carrier service door: “U.S. MAIL” in a minimum of 0.50 inch-high letters and “Approved By The Postmaster General” in a minimum of 0.18 inch-high letters. These inscriptions may be positioned beneath the incoming mail slot for Limited Service Locked (Mail Slot Design) mailboxes as shown in Figure 2B. Markings must be permanent and may be accomplished by applying a decal, embossing on sheet metal, raised lettering on plastic, engraving on wood or other methods that are suitable for that particular unit. The manufacturer's name, address, date of manufacture (month and year), and model number or nomenclature must be legible and permanently marked or affixed on a panel (rear, backside of door, bottom or side interior near the carrier service door) of the mailbox that is readily accessible and not obscured.

    3.7.1 Modified Mailbox Marking—Mailboxes that use previously approved units in their design must include marking stating the new manufacturer's name address, date of manufacture, and model nomenclature in a permanent fashion and location as described in 3.7. Additionally, the “U.S. MAIL” and “Approved By The Postmaster General” marking must be reapplied if it is obscured or obliterated by the new design.

    3.8 Coatings and Finishes—The choice of coatings and finishes is optional, provided all requirements of this standard are met. All coatings and finishes must be free from flaking, peeling, cracking, crazing, blushing, and powdery surfaces. Coatings and finishes must be compatible with the mailbox materials. Except for small decorative accents, mirror-like coatings or finishes are prohibited. The coating or finish must meet the applicable testing requirements described in 4.6.

    3.9 Color—The color of the mailbox and flag must be in accordance with the requirements stated in 3.9. The mailbox may be any color. The carrier signal flag can be any color except any shade of green, brown, white, yellow or blue. The preferred flag color is fluorescent orange. Also, the flag color must present a clear contrast with predominant color of the mailbox.

    3.10 Mounting—The mailbox must be provided with means for convenient and locked mounting that meets all applicable requirements. The manufacturer may offer various types of mounting accessories, such as a bracket, post or stand. Although the Postal Service does not regulate the design of mounting accessories, no part of the mounting accessory is permitted to project beyond the front of the mounted mailbox. Mounting accessories must not interfere with delivery operations as described in 3.1.3 or present hazardous features as described in 3.13. See Section 8 for additional important information.

    3.11 Instructions and Product Information

    3.11.1 Assembly and Installation—A complete set of instructions for assembling and mounting the mailbox must be furnished with each unit. The instructions must include the following conspicuous message:

    CUSTOMERS ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE LOCAL POST OFFICE BEFORE INSTALLING THE MAILBOX TO ENSURE ITS CORRECT PLACEMENT AND HEIGHT AT THE STREET. GENERALLY, MAILBOXES ARE INSTALLED AT A HEIGHT OF 41-45 INCHES FROM THE ROAD SURFACE TO EITHER THE INSIDE SURFACE OF THE MAILBOX THAT THE MAIL IS PLACED ON BY THE CARRIER OR TO THE LOWEST EDGE OF MAIL ENTRY (FOR LOCKED MAIL SLOT DESIGNS) AND ARE SET BACK 6-8 INCHES FROM THE FRONT FACE OF CURB OR ROAD EDGE TO THE MAILBOX DOOR.

    3.11.2 Limited Service Mailboxes—The following conspicuous note must be included with each mailbox:

    THIS IS A LIMITED SERVICE MAILBOX (WITHOUT FLAG) AND IT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR CUSTOMERS WHO DO NOT WANT POSTAL CARRIERS TO PICK UP THEIR OUTGOING MAIL. UNLESS POSTAL CARRIERS HAVE MAIL TO DELIVER, THEY WILL NOT STOP AT LIMITED SERVICE MAILBOXES.

    3.12 Newspaper Receptacles—A receptacle for the delivery of newspapers may be attached to the post of a curbside mailbox provided no part of the receptacle interferes with the delivery of mail, obstructs the view of the flag, or presents a hazard to the carrier or the carrier's vehicle. The receptacle must not extend beyond the front of the box when the door is closed. No advertising may be displayed on the outside of the receptacle, except the name of the publication. If the mailbox design does not require a post, a separate mounting arrangement must be made.

    3.13 Workmanship—The mailbox must be properly assembled and utilize the best commercial practice workmanship standards in the fabrication of all components and assemblies. All movable parts must fit and operate properly with no unintended catch or binding points. The unit must be free from harmful projections or other hazardous devices. The unit must not have any sharp edges, sharp corners, burrs or other features (on any surfaces) that may be hazardous to carriers or customers, or that may interfere with delivery operations as described in 3.1.

    3.14 Intellectual Property—Under no circumstances does the Postal Service intend that manufacturers use third-party intellectual property without an appropriate license agreement between the manufacturer and the third party at issue. The manufacturer is solely responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses and is solely responsible for any liability incurred in connection with any intellectual property infringement allegations concerning devices that the USPS reviews and approves. The manufacturer agrees not to use any USPS marks, including but not limited to APPROVED BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL or USPS-APPROVED, without prior USPS approval and a license from the USPS.2

    2 For additional information concerning the use of USPS marks or intellectual property, see: https://about.usps.com/doing-business/rights-permissions/welcome.

    4. Testing Requirements

    4.1 Testing Requirements—Mailboxes will be subjected to all applicable testing described herein (specific requirements follow). A mailbox that fails to pass any test will be rejected. Testing will be conducted in sequence as listed herein and in Table III.

    4.2 Capacity—Non-locked and locked designs must meet the applicable minimum capacity requirements as tested by insertion and removal of a test gauge or appropriate mail test items as specified in 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

    4.2.1 Capacity (Limited Capacity Test Gauge)—Traditional and Contemporary designs, submitted for approval under 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2, must meet minimum capacity requirements tested by insertion and removal of a standard test gauge which measures 18.50 inches long x 5.00 inches wide x 6.00 inches high. The test gauge is inserted with its 6-inch dimension aligned in the vertical axis (perpendicular to the mailbox floor). The gauge must be capable of easy insertion and removal; and while inserted, allow for all doors to be completely closed without interference.

    The capacity of Locked designs, submitted for approval under 3.1.2.1, which have slots, chutes or similar features, will be tested and approved based upon whether standard USPS mail sizes (see Table I) can be easily inserted through the mail slot or opening. Retrieval of this mail from the locked compartment must be equally as easy.

    Table I—Standard Mail [Locked designs] Description Size
  • (L x H x Thk)
  • (inches)
  • Express & Priority Mail Envelopes 121/2 x 91/2 x 1/2 Priority Mail Box 85/8 x 53/8 x 15/8

    4.2.2 Capacity (Expanded Capacity Test Gauge)—Non-Locked and Locked designs, submitted for approval to either 3.1.1.3 or 3.1.2.2, must meet minimum capacity requirements tested by insertion and removal of a standard test gauge which measures 16.00 inches long x 13.00 inches wide x 7.00 inches high. The test gauge is inserted with its 7-inch dimension aligned in the vertical axis (perpendicular to the mailbox floor). The gauge must be capable of easy insertion and removal; and while inserted, allow for all doors to be completely closed without interference. The capacity of Locked designs must also meet this capacity test requirement; however, any dimension may be aligned in the vertical axis. Retrieval of the test gauge from the locked compartment must be equally as easy.

    4.3 Operational Requirements—Carrier service doors, auxiliary doors, door catches or mechanisms, carrier signal flags, and applicable accessory devices must be capable of operating 7,500 normal operating cycles (1 cycle = open/close) at room temperature, continuously and correctly, without any failures such as breakage of parts. Testing may be performed either manually or by means of an automated mechanically driven test fixture which essentially mimics a manual operation. This test applies to all mailbox designs.

    4. Water-Tightness—A rain test in accordance with UL 771, section 47.7, must be performed to determine a mailbox's ability to protect mail from water. The rain test must be operated for a period of 15 minutes for each side. At the conclusion of the test, the outside of the unit is wiped dry and all doors are opened. The inside of the compartment must contain no water other than that produced by high moisture condensation. This test applies to all mailbox designs.

    4.5 Salt Spray Resistance—A salt spray test must be conducted in accordance with method A5 of ASTM G85, Standard Practice for Modified Salt Spray (Fog) Testing. The salt test must be operated for 25 continuous cycles with each cycle consisting of 1-hour fog and 1-hour dry-off. The mailbox must be tested in a finished condition, including all protective coating, paint, and mounting hardware and must be thoroughly washed when submitted to remove all oil, grease, and other nonpermanent coatings. No part of the mailbox may show finish corrosion, blistering or peeling, or other destructive reaction upon conclusion of test. Corrosion is defined as any form of property change such as rust, oxidation, color changes, perforation, accelerated erosion, or disintegration. The build-up of salt deposits upon the surface will not be cause for rejection. However, any corrosion, paint blistering, or paint peeling is cause for rejection. This test is primarily applicable to ferrous metal mailbox designs. The test is also valid for mailbox designs made of plastic, wood, or other materials that use any metal hardware.

    4.6 Abrasion Resistance—The mailbox's coating or finish must be tested for resistance to abrasion in accordance with method A of ASTM D968. The rate of sand flow must be 2 liters of sand in 22 ±3 seconds. The mailbox will have failed the sand abrasion test if it requires less than 15 liters of sand to penetrate its coating, or if it requires less than 75 liters of sand to penetrate its plating. This test applies to metal mailbox designs only.

    4.7 Temperature Stress Test—The mailbox under test must be placed in a cold chamber at -65 °F for 24 hours. The chamber must first be stabilized at the test temperature. After remaining in the -65° environment for the 24-hour period, the unit must be quickly removed from the cold chamber into room ambient temperature and tested for normal operation. The removal from the chamber and the testing for normal operation must be accomplished in less than 3 minutes. The room ambient temperature must be between 65° and 75 °F. Normal operation is defined as operation required and defined by this document. The unit under test must undergo a similar temperature test, as described above, at a temperature of 140 °F. This test applies to all mailbox designs.

    4.8 Structural Rigidity Requirements—Forces of specified magnitude (see Table II) must be slowly applied at specific points on the mailbox under test (see Figure 6). These forces must be held for a minimum of 1 minute and then released. After their release, the deformation caused by the forces must be measured. If the deformation exceeds the limit specified in Table II, the mailbox under test has failed to meet the structural rigidity requirement. The doors must remain closed for test positions 1 through 6. The forces at positions 1 and 2 must be applied with the mailbox in its normal upright position, supported by a horizontal board. The forces at positions 3, 4, and 5 must be applied with the mailbox lying on its side (flag side down). The mailbox must be supported, on the flag side, by a flat board that is relieved in the immediate area of the flag mechanism. The force at position 6 (Non-Locked mailbox flags only) must be applied with the mailbox lying on its side (flag side up). This load may be applied as shown in Figure 5 or from the other direction. If visible cracks in the material develop as a result of the testing, the mailbox under test has failed to meet the structural rigidity requirement. At the conclusion of the Structural Rigidity testing, if the mailbox under test fails to operate normally, as defined by this document, the mailbox under test has failed to meet the structural rigidity requirement. This test applies to all mailbox designs.

    Table II—Permanent Deformation Limits Position Deformation
  • (inches)
  • Load
  • (pounds)
  • 1 1/8 200 2 1/8 200 3 1/8 50 4 1/8 50 5 1/8 100 6 1/2 2

    4.9 Impact Test—Refer to Figure 6 for load positions. Precondition the mailbox for 4 hours at −20 °F. The following testing must be performed within 3 minutes of removing the mailbox from the temperature chamber. At both load positions 3 and 4, with the mailbox lying on its side (flag side down) with all doors closed, apply an impact load force generated by a 10-pound weight dropped from a height of 3 feet above the mailbox surface onto a bolster plate having a surface not larger than 2 inches by 6 inches. The mailbox must be supported, on the underside, by a flat board that is relieved in the immediate area of the flag mechanism. If any noticeable perforation, occurrence of sharp edges, or cracking of the material (either inside or outside the mailbox) develops as a result of the impact, or if the door becomes inoperable or fails to close normally, the mailbox under test has failed to meet the impact resistance requirement. This test applies to all mailbox designs.

    4.10 Door Catch or Mechanism Test—Door catches and mechanisms must be tested to demonstrate that a force not greater than 5 pounds or less than 1 pound is required to open and close them (see 3.3). A force measurement device must be attached to the front door's knob or handle. The load must be applied slowly in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the door. The device must allow for the measured force limits to be recorded accurately.

    4.11 Carrier Signal Flag Test—The mailbox flag must be tested to demonstrate that a force not exceeding 2 pounds is required to deploy, extend, raise, or retract it. The load must be applied at the flag edge furthest from the hinged end or at the leading edge, if the flag retracts and extends. A force measurement device must be attached to the flag so as to apply the load and allow for it to be recorded accurately.

    4.12 Security Test (Locked, Large Capacity Designs)—Locked design mailboxes, submitted for 3.1.2.2 approval, must be tested as described below for resistance to tampering and unauthorized entry through the use of tools such as screwdrivers, flat plates, knives, pry bars, vise grips, pliers, chisels, and punches for a period not to exceed 3 minutes for each feature tested. Pry tools used for testing must not exceed 12 inches in length.

    4.12.1 Customer Access Door—Gaps and seams around the perimeter of the customer access door must be tested using pry tools listed in 4.12 for a period not to exceed 3 minutes to ensure that access to the compartment cannot be gained within that period of time.

    4.12.2 Carrier Access Door—A manual test must be conducted for a period of 3 minutes to ensure that no customer mail items can be accessed and removed through an opened carrier access door within that period of time. No tools are to be used in the performance of this test.

    5. Quality Management System Provisions

    5.1 Quality System—The approved source must ensure and be able to substantiate that manufactured units conform to requirements and match the approved design.

    5.2 Inspection—The USPS reserves the right to inspect units for conformance at any stage of manufacture. Inspection by the USPS does not relieve the approved source of the responsibility to provide conforming product. The USPS, may, at its discretion, revoke the approval status of any product that does not meet the requirements of this standard.

    5.3 System—The approved source must use a documented quality management system acceptable to the USPS. The USPS has the right to evaluate the acceptability and effectiveness of the approved source's quality management system prior to approval, and during tenure as an approved source. At a minimum, the quality management system must include controls and record keeping in the areas described in 5.3.1 through 5.3.8.

    5.3.1 Document Control—Documents used in the manufacture of product must be controlled. The control process for documents must ensure the following:

    • Documents are identified, reviewed, and approved prior to use.

    • Revision status is identified.

    • Documents of external origin are identified and controlled.

    5.3.2 Supplier Oversight—The approved source must use a documented process that ensures the following:

    • Material requirements and specifications are clearly described in procurement documents.

    • Inspection or other verification methods are established and implemented for validation of purchased materials.

    5.3.3 Inspection and Testing—The approved source must monitor and verify that product characteristics match approved design. This activity must be carried out at appropriate stages of manufacture to ensure that only acceptable products are delivered.

    5.3.4 Control of Nonconforming Product—The control method and disposition process must be defined and ensure that any product or material that does not conform to the approved design is identified and controlled to prevent its unintended use or delivery.

    5.3.5 Control of Inspection, Measuring, and Test Equipment—The approved source must ensure that all equipment used to verify product conformance is controlled, identified, and calibrated at prescribed intervals traceable to nationally recognized standards in accordance with documented procedures.

    5.3.6 Corrective Action—The approved source must maintain a documented complaint process. This process must ensure that all complaints are reviewed and that appropriate action is taken to determine cause and prevent reoccurrence. Action must be taken in a timely manner and be based on the severity of the nonconformance. In addition to outlining the approved source's approach to quality, the documentation must specify the methodology used to accomplish the interlinked processes and describe how they are controlled. The approved source must submit its quality documentation to the Postal Service for review along with the preliminary design review.

    NOTE: It is recognized that each approved source functions individually. Consequently, the quality system of each approved source may differ in the specific methods of accomplishment. It is not the intent of this standard to attempt to standardize these systems, but to present the basic functional concepts that when conscientiously implemented will provide assurance that the approved source's product meets the requirements and fully matches the approved design.

    5.3.7 Documentation Retention—All of the approved source's documentation pertaining to the approved product must be kept for a minimum of 3 years after shipment of product.

    5.3.8 Documentation Submittal—The approved source must submit a copy of its quality system documentation relevant to the manufacture of curbside mailboxes for review as requested during the approval process and tenure as an approved source.

    6. Application Requirements

    6.1 Application Requirements—All correspondence and inquiries must be directed to the address in 1.3.2. The application process consists of the steps described in 6.1.1 through 6.1.3.4.

    6.1.1 Preliminary Review—Manufacturers must first satisfy requirements of a preliminary review prior to submitting samples of any sample mailboxes or accessories. The preliminary review consists of a review of the manufacturer's conceptual design drawings for each mailbox for which the manufacturer is seeking approval. Computer-generated drawings are preferred, but hand-drawn sketches are acceptable provided they adequately depict the overall shape and interior size of the proposed mailbox design. Drawings must also include details about the design of applicable features such as the carrier service door (including the mail drop design and mechanism, for locking mailboxes), latch, handle, flag, floor, and mail induction opening size. If drawings show that the proposed mailbox design appears likely to comply with the requirements of this standard, manufacturers will be notified in writing and may then continue with the application requirements described in 6.1.2. Do NOT submit any sample units to the USPS prior to complying with the requirements of 6.1.2. Notification that a manufacturer's drawings satisfy the requirements of the preliminary review does NOT constitute USPS approval of a design and must NOT be relied upon as an assurance that a design will ultimately be approved.

    6.1.2 Independent Lab Testing—Upon receiving written notification from the USPS that a submitted design satisfies requirements of the preliminary review, manufacturers must, at their own expense, submit one representative sample of their mailbox or accessory for which the vendor seeks USPS approval to an independent laboratory for testing along with a copy of the preliminary review letter from the USPS. Manufacturers with more than one unique model must have each one tested independently. Models that are generally of the same size, shape, and material of previously approved designs but only have different decorative features (i.e., color scheme and surface contours) are not considered unique and do not require any testing. Manufacturers seeking approval of models that are not unique must submit documentation for each model in accordance with 6.1.3.2. This documentation must be reviewed and the proposed model must either be approved or disapproved (see Section 7). All tests must be performed by an approved independent test lab, except for the security tests, which must be performed by the Postal Service. See Appendix A for information on how to receive the list of USPS-approved independent test labs.

    6.1.3 Final Review—Within one year of receipt of USPS preliminary review approval, manufacturers must submit one sample mailbox or accessory to the USPS for security testing (if applicable), final review, and approval. The sample must be accompanied with a certificate of compliance and a copy of the laboratory test results (see 6.1.3.3). Mailboxes submitted to the USPS (see 1.3.2) for final evaluation must be identical in every way to the mailboxes to be marketed, and must be marked as specified in 3.7. Manufacturers may be subject to a verification of their quality system prior to approval. This may consist of a review of the manufacturer's quality manual (see 6.1.3.4) and an onsite quality system evaluation (see 5.2). If this final review submission does not occur within the prescribed timeframe, the preliminary review approval will be rescinded.

    6.1.3.1 Installation Instructions—Manufacturers must furnish a written copy of their installation instructions for review. These instructions must contain all information as detailed in 3.11.

    6.1.3.2 Documentation—Units submitted for approval must be accompanied by one complete set of manufacturing drawings consisting of black on white prints (blueprints or sepia are unacceptable). The drawings must be dated and signed by the manufacturer's representatives. In addition, a second complete drawing set must be provided in electronic form. This drawing set does not have to be images of the signed drawings. The drawings must completely document and represent the design of the unit tested. If other versions of the approved mailbox are to be offered, the drawings must include the unique or differing design items of these versions. The drawings must include sufficient details to allow the USPS to inspect all materials, construction methods, processes, coatings, treatments, finishes (including paint types), control specifications, parts, and assemblies used in the construction of the unit. Additionally, the drawings must fully describe any purchased materials, components, and hardware including their respective finishes. The USPS may request individual piece parts to verify drawings.

    6.1.3.3 Certification of Compliance and Test Results—Manufacturers must furnish a written certificate of compliance indicating that their design fully complies with the requirements of this standard. In addition, the manufacturer must submit the lab's original report which clearly shows results of each test conducted (see Table III). The manufacturer bears all responsibility for its units meeting these requirements and the USPS reserves the right to retest any and all units submitted, including those which are available to the general public. Any changes to the design after approval and certification must be submitted to the USPS for evaluation.

    Table III—Test Requirements Test Requirement Reference Applicable document Capacity Insertion of test gauge 4.2 Operational Requirements 7,500 cycles 4.3 Water-Tightness No appreciable moisture 4.4 UL 771, Section 47.7. Salt Spray Resistance 25 cycles 4.5 ASTM G85. Abrasion Resistance 75 liters 4.6 ASTM D968. Temperature Stress Test Must function between −65° F and 140° F 4.7 Structural Rigidity Requirements Refer to Table II for loads and points, maximum 1/8 inch permanent deformation 4.8 Impact Test 10 lbs. dropped from 3 feet 4.9 Door Catch/Mechanism Test Max 5 lbs./Min 1 lb. to open/close door 4.10 Carrier Signal Flag Test Max 2 lbs. required to use flag 4.11

    6.1.3.4 Quality Policy Manual—The manufacturer must submit its quality policy manual to the address listed in 1.3.2.

    7. Approval or Disapproval

    7.1 Disapproval—Written notification, including reasons for disapproval, will be sent to the manufacturer within 30 days of completion of the final review of all submitted units. All correspondence and inquiries must be directed to the address listed in 1.3.2.

    7.1.1 Disapproved Mailboxes—Mailboxes disapproved will be disposed of in 30 calendar days from the date of the written notification of disapproval or returned to the manufacturer, if requested, provided the manufacturer pays shipping costs.

    7.2 Approval—One set of manufacturing drawings with written notification of approval will be returned to the manufacturer. The drawings will be stamped and identified as representing each unit.

    7.2.1 Approved Mailboxes—Mailboxes that are approved will be retained by the USPS.

    7.2.2. Rescission—The manufacturer's production units must be constructed in accordance with the USPS-certified drawings and the provisions of this specification and be of the same materials, construction, coating, workmanship, finish, etc., as the approved units. The USPS reserves the right at any time to examine and retest units obtained either in the general marketplace or from the manufacturer. If the USPS determines that a mailbox model is not in compliance with this standard or is out of conformance with approved drawings, the USPS may, at its discretion, rescind approval of the mailbox as described in 7.2.2.1 through 7.2.2.5.

    7.2.2.1 Written Notification—The USPS will provide written notification to the manufacturer that a mailbox is not in compliance with this standard or is out of conformance with approved drawings. This notification will include the specific reasons that the unit is noncompliant or out of conformance and will be sent via Registered MailTM.

    7.2.2.1.1 Health and Safety—If the USPS determines that the noncompliance or nonconformity constitutes a danger to the health or safety of customers or letter carriers, the USPS may, at its discretion, immediately rescind approval of the unit. In addition, the USPS may, at its discretion, order that production of the mailbox cease immediately, that any existing inventory not be sold for receipt of U.S. Mail, and that USPS Approved corrective design changes be applied to sold and unsold units.

    7.2.2.2 Manufacturer's Response—In all cases of noncompliance or nonconformity other than those determined to constitute a danger to the health or safety of customers or letter carriers, the manufacturer must confer with the USPS and must submit one sample of a corrected mailbox to the USPS for approval no later than 45 calendar days after receipt of the notification described in 7.2.2.1. Failure to confer or submit a corrected mailbox within the prescribed period will constitute grounds for immediate rescission.

    7.2.2.3 Second Written Notification—The USPS will respond to the manufacturer in writing, via Registered Mail, no later than 30 calendar days after receipt of the corrected mailbox with a determination of whether the manufacturer's submission is accepted or rejected and with specific reasons for the determination.

    7.2.2.4 Manufacturer's Second Response—If the USPS rejects the corrected mailbox, the manufacturer may submit a second sample of the corrected mailbox to the USPS for approval no later than 45 calendar days after receipt of the notification described in 7.2.2.3. Failure to confer or submit a corrected mailbox within the prescribed period will constitute grounds for immediate rescission.

    7.2.2.5 Final USPS Rescission Notification—The USPS will provide a final response to the manufacturer in writing no later than 30 calendar days after receipt of the second sample corrected mailbox with a determination of whether the manufacturer's submission is accepted or rejected and with specific reasons for the determination. If the second submission is rejected, the USPS may, at its discretion, rescind approval of the mailbox. In addition, the USPS may, at its discretion, order that production of the mailbox cease immediately, and that any existing inventory not be sold or used for receipt of U.S. Mail. If the USPS rescinds approval, the manufacturer is not prohibited from applying for a new approval pursuant to the provisions of 6.

    7.2.3 Revisions, Product or Drawings—Changes that affect the form, fit, or function (e.g., dimensions, material, and finish) of approved products or drawings must not be made without written USPS approval. Any proposed changes must be submitted with the affected documentation reflecting the changes (including a notation in the revision area), and a written explanation of the changes. One unit, incorporating the changes, may be required to be resubmitted for testing and evaluation for approval.

    7.2.3.1 Corporate or Organizational Changes—If any substantive part of the approved manufacturer's structure changes from what existed when the manufacturer became approved, the manufacturer must promptly notify the USPS and will be subject to a reevaluation of its approved products and quality system. Examples of substantive structural changes include the following: Change in ownership, executive or quality management; major change in quality policy or procedures; relocation of manufacturing facilities; and major equipment or manufacturing process change (e.g., outsourcing vs. in-plant fabrication). Notification of such changes must be sent to the address given in 1.3.

    7.2.4 Product Brochure—Within 60 days upon sale to the public, manufacturers must submit one copy of their product brochures representing approved mailbox designs to the address listed in 1.3.2 and to: USPS, Delivery Program Support, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Rm. 7142, Washington, DC 20260-7142.

    8. Notes

    8.1 Mailboxes intended to be used in delivery to customers' doors are not currently “approved” by the United States Postal Service as referenced in this standard. However, it is recommended that these boxes conform to the intentions of this specification, particularly the safety of the carrier and customer and the protection of the mail. The local postmaster must be contacted prior to the installation and use of any door mailbox.

    8.2 The United States Postal Service does not approve mailbox posts or regulate mounting of mailboxes other than the requirements specified in 3.10 and 3.11. Please note that mailbox posts are often subject to local restrictions, state laws, and federal highway regulations. Further information may be obtained from:

    American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 N. Capitol St. NW., Suite 249, Washington, DC 20001-1512, http://www.transportation.org Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, safety.fhwa.dat.gov BILLING CODE 7710-12-P ER14AU15.081 ER14AU15.082 ER14AU15.083 ER14AU15.084 ER14AU15.085 ER14AU15.086 ER14AU15.087 ER14AU15.088
    Appendix A USPS-APPROVED INDEPENDENT TEST LABORATORIES

    To obtain the latest list of USPS-approved test labs, contact:

    USPS ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, DELIVERY AND RETAIL TECHNOLOGY, 8403 LEE HIGHWAY, MERRIFIELD, VA 22082-8101

    Additional test laboratories may be added provided they satisfy USPS certification criteria. Interested laboratories should contact:

    USPS ENGINEERING, TEST EVALUATION AND QUALITY, 8403 LEE HIGHWAY, MERRIFIELD, VA 22082-8101
    [FR Doc. 2015-20033 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0103 FRL-9926-85-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Iowa; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; notice of administrative change.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the materials submitted by Iowa that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the state implementation plan (SIP). EPA is also notifying the public of the correction of certain typographical errors within the IBR table. The regulations affected by this update have been previously submitted by the state agency and approved by EPA. This update affects the SIP materials that are available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the Regional Office.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on August 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; or at http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/rules/fedapprv.htm; For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jan Simpson at (913) 551-7089, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The SIP is a living document which the state revises as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA from time to time must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations to make them part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference Federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of Federal Register. The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997, Federal Register document.

    On February 12, 1999, EPA published a document in the Federal Register (64 FR 7091) beginning the new IBR procedure for Iowa. On September 23, 2004 (69 FR 56942), and on July 29, 2009, (74 FR 37556) EPA published an update to the IBR material for Iowa.

    In this document, EPA is publishing an updated set of tables listing the regulatory (i.e., IBR) materials in the Iowa SIP taking into account the additions, deletions, and revisions to those materials previously submitted by the state agency and approved by EPA. We are removing the EPA Headquarters Library from paragraph (b)(3), as IBR materials are no longer available at this location. In addition, EPA has found errors in certain entries listed in 40 CFR 52.820(c), as amended in the published IBR update actions listed above, and is correcting them in this document. Table (c) revisions include:

    • Adding the inadvertent omission of the following explanation to the explanation column for 567.22.1 (Permits Required for New or Existing Stationary Sources): In 22.1(3) the following sentence regarding electronic submission is not SIP approved. The sentence is “Alternatively, the owner or operator may apply for a construction permit for a new or modified stationary source through the electronic submittal format specified by the department”.

    • Adding the inadvertent omission of the following explanation to the explanation column for 567-22.3 (Issuing Permits): Subrule 22.3(6) has not been approved as part of the SIP. Subrule 22.3(6), Limits on Hazardous Air Pollutants, has been approved under Title V and section 112(l). The remainder of the rule has not been approved pursuant to Title V and section 112(l).

    • 567.22.105 (Title V Permit Applications): Correcting the state effective date, correcting the EPA approval date column to the correct date and Federal Register citation, and adding the inadvertent omission of the following explanation to the explanation column: In 22.105(1) Duty to apply the last sentence “Alternatively, an owner or operator may submit a complete and timely application through the electronic submittal format specified by the department.” is not approved. In 22.105(1) “a” new subparagraph (9) is not approved.

    • Adding the inadvertent omission of the following explanation to the explanation column for 567-23.1 (Emission Standards): Sections 23.1(2)-(5) are not approved in the SIP. Section 23.1(5) is approved as part of the 111(d) plan.

    Table (e) revisions include:

    • Adding text in the explanation column for (4)-(39).

    II. EPA Action

    In this action, EPA is doing the following:

    A. Announcing the update to the IBR material as of December 31, 2014;

    B. Revising the entry in paragraph 52.820(b) to reflect the update and corrections;

    C. Revising certain entries in paragraph 52.820 (c) as described above;

    D. Correcting the date format in the “State effective date” or “State submittal date” and “EPA approval date” columns in paragraphs 52.820 (c), (d) and (e). Dates are numerical month/day/year without additional zeros;

    E. Modifying the Federal Register citation in paragraphs 52.820 (c), (d) and (e) to reflect the beginning page of the preamble as opposed to the page number of the regulatory text.

    EPA has determined that today's rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3), which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Today's rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by providing notice of the updated Iowa SIP compilation.

    Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Iowa regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

    • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

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

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

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

    EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Iowa SIP compilations previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” reorganization update action for the State of Iowa.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 7, 2015. Mark Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below: Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart Q Iowa
    2. In § 52.820, paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) are revised to read as follows:
    § 52.820 Identification of plan.

    (b) Incorporation by reference. (1) Material listed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with an EPA approval date prior to December 31, 2014, was approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Material is incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval, and notice of any change in the material will be published in the Federal Register. Entries in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section with EPA approval dates after December 31, 2014, will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

    (2) EPA Region 7 certifies that the rules/regulations provided by EPA in the SIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated state rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the SIP as of December 31, 2014.

    (3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). If you wish to obtain material from the EPA Regional Office, please call (913) 551-7089. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    (c) EPA-approved regulations.

    EPA-Approved Iowa Regulations Iowa citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission [567] Chapter 20—Scope of Title—Definitions—Forms—Rule of Practice 567-20.1 Scope of Title 1/15/14 5/15/14, 79 FR 27763 This rule is a non-substantive description of the Chapters contained in the Iowa rules. EPA has not approved all of the Chapters to which this rule refers. 567-20.2 Definitions 04/22/15 8/10/15, 80 FR 33192 567-20.3 Air Quality Forms Generally 04/22/15 8/10/15, 80 FR 33192 Chapter 21—Compliance 567-21.1 Compliance Schedule 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-21.2 Variances 4/4/07 10/16/07, 72 FR 58535 567-21.3 Emission Reduction Program 3/14/90 6/29/90, 55 FR 26690 567-21.4 Circumvention of Rules 3/14/90 6/29/90, 55 FR 26690 567-21.5 Evidence Used in Establishing That a Violation Has or Is Occurring 11/16/94 10/30/95, 60 FR 55198 567-21.6 Temporary Electricity Generation for Disaster Situations 10/15/08 12/29/09, 74 FR 68692 Chapter 22—Controlling Pollution 567-22.1 Permits Required for New or Existing Stationary Sources 4/22/15 8/10/15, 80 FR 33192 In 22.1(3) the following sentence regarding electronic submission is not SIP approved. The sentence is “Alternatively, the owner or operator may apply for a construction permit for a new or modified stationary source through the electronic submittal format specified by the department”. 567-22.2 Processing Permit Applications 4/22/15 8/10/15, 80 FR 33192 567-22.3 Issuing Permits 10/24/12 1/16/14, 79 FR 2787 Subrule 22.3(6) has not been approved as part of the SIP. Subrule 22.3(6), Limits on Hazardous Air Pollutants, has been approved under Title V and section 112(l). The remainder of the rule has not been approved pursuant to Title V and section 112(l). 567-22.4 Special Requirements for Major Stationary Sources Located in Areas Designated Attainment or Unclassified (PSD) 6/11/08 12/29/09, 74 FR 68692 567-22.5 Special Requirements for Nonattainment Areas 1/15/14 5/15/14, 79 FR 27763 Rescinded and moved to 567-31.20. 567-22.8 Permits by Rule 10/23/13 5/14/14, 79 FR 27490 567-22.9 Special Requirements for Visibility Protection 11/11/09 10/25/13, 78 FR 63887 567-22.10 Permitting Requirements for Country Grain Elevators, Country Grain Terminal Elevators, Grain Terminal Elevators and Feed Mill Equipment 9/10/14 8/10/15, 80 FR 33192 567-22.105 Title V Permit Applications 11/11/09 10/25/13, 78 FR 63887 Only subparagraph (2)i(5) is approved as part of the SIP. In 22.105(1) Duty to apply the last sentence “Alternatively, an owner or operator may submit a complete and timely application through the electronic submittal format specified by the department.” is not approved. In 22.105(1) “a” new subparagraph (9) is not approved. 567-22.200 Definitions for Voluntary Operating Permits 10/18/95 4/30/96, 61 FR 18958 567-22.201 Eligibility for Voluntary Operating Permits 4/4/07 10/16/07, 72 FR 58535 567-22.202 Requirement to Have a Title V Permit 4/9/97 6/25/98, 63 FR 34600 567-22.203 Voluntary Operating Permit Applications 11/11/09 10/25/13, 78 FR 63887 567-22.204 Voluntary Operating Permit Fees 12/14/94 4/30/96, 61 FR 18958 567-22.205 Voluntary Operating Permit Processing Procedures 12/14/94 4/30/96, 61 FR 18958 567-22.206 Permit Content 10/18/95 4/30/96, 61 FR 18958 567-22.207 Relation to Construction Permits 10/15/08 12/29/09, 74 FR 68692 567-22.208 Suspension, Termination, and Revocation of Voluntary Operating Permits 12/14/94 4/30/96, 61 FR 18958 567-22.209 Change of Ownership for Facilities with Voluntary Operating Permits 11/11/09 10/25/13, 78 FR 63887 567-22.300 Operating permit by rule for small sources 11/11/09 10/25/13, 78 FR 63887 Chapter 23—Emission Standards for Contaminants 567-23.1 Emission Standards 11/24/10 10/25/13, 78 FR 63887 Sections 23.1(2)-(5) are not approved in the SIP. Section 23.1 (5) is approved as part of the 111(d) plan. 567-23.2 Open Burning 1/14/04 11/3/04, 69 FR 63945 Subrule 23.2(3)g(2) was not submitted for approval. Variances from open burning rule 23.2(2) are subject to EPA approval. 567-23.3 Specific Contaminants 6/11/08 12/29/09, 74 FR 68692 Subrule 23.3(3) “(d)” is not SIP approved. 567-23.4 Specific Processes 6/11/08 12/29/09, 74 FR 68692 Subrule 23.4(10) is not SIP approved. Chapter 24—Excess Emissions 567-24.1 Excess Emission Reporting 11/24/10 10/25/13, 78 FR 63887 567-24.2 Maintenance and Repair Requirements 3/14/90 6/29/90, 55 FR 26690 Chapter 25—Measurement of Emissions 567-25.1 Testing and Sampling of New and Existing Equipment 10/24/12 1/16/14, 79 FR 2787 Chapter 26—Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes 567-26.1 General 3/14/90 6/29/90, 55 FR 26690 567-26.2 Episode Criteria 3/14/90 6/29/90, 55 FR 26690 567-26.3 Preplanned Abatement Strategies 3/14/90 6/29/90, 55 FR 26690 567-26.4 Actions During Episodes 3/14/90 6/29/90, 55 FR 26690 Chapter 27—Certificate of Acceptance 567-27.1 General 3/14/90 6/29/90, 55 FR 26690 567-27.2 Certificate of Acceptance 3/14/90 6/29/90, 55 FR 26690 567-27.3 Ordinance or Regulations 3/14/90 6/29/90, 55 FR 26690 567-27.4 Administrative Organization 3/14/90 6/29/90, 55 FR 26690 567-27.5 Program Activities 3/14/90 6/29/90, 55 FR 26690 Chapter 28—Ambient Air Quality Standards 567-28.1 Statewide Standards 10/23/13 5/14/14, 79 FR 27490 Chapter 29—Qualification in Visual Determination of the Opacity of Emissions 567-29.1 Methodology and Qualified Observer 5/13/98 5/22/00, 65 FR 32030 Chapter 31—Nonattainment Areas 567-31.1 Permit Requirements Relating to Nonattainment Areas 1/15/14 5/15/14, 79 FR 27763 567-31.2 Conformity of General Federal Actions to the Iowa SIP or Federal Implementation Plan 1/15/14 5/15/14, 79 FR 27763 567-31.3 Nonattainment new source review requirements for areas designated nonattainment on or after May 18, 1998 1/15/14 5/15/14, 79 FR 27763 567-31.4 Preconstruction review permit program 1/15/14 5/15/14, 79 FR 27763 567-31.9 Actual PALs 1/15/14 5/15/14, 79 FR 27763 567-31.10 Validity of Rules 1/15/14 5/15/14, 79 FR 27763 567-31.20 Special requirements for nonattainment areas designated before May 18, 1998 (originally adopted in 567-22.5(455B)) 4/22/15 8/10/15, 80 FR 33192 Chapter 33—Special Regulations and Construction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources—Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality 567-33.1 Purpose 1/15/14 5/15/14, 79 FR 27763 567-33.3 Special construction permit requirements for major stationary sources in areas designated attainment or unclassified (PSD) 4/22/14 8/10/15, 80 FR 33192 567-33.9 Plantwide applicability limitations (PALs) 11/1/06 5/14/07, 72 FR 27056 567-33.10 Exceptions to adoption by reference 11/1/06 5/14/07, 72 FR 27056 Chapter 34—Provisions for Air Quality Emissions Trading Programs 567-34.1 Purpose 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-34.201 CAIR NOX annual trading program provisions 11/28/07 4/15/08, 73 FR 20177 567-34.202 CAIR designated representative for CAIR NOX sources 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-34.203 Permits 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-34.205 CAIR NOX allowance allocations 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-34.206 CAIR NOX allowance tracking system 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-34.207 CAIR NOX allowance transfers 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-34.208 Monitoring and reporting 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-34.209 CAIR NOX opt-in units 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-34.210 CAIR SO2 trading program 11/28/07 4/15/08, 73 FR 20177 567-34.220 CAIR NOX ozone season trading program 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-34.221 CAIR NOX ozone season trading program general 11/28/07 4/15/08, 73 FR 20177 567-34.222 CAIR designated representative for CAIR NOX ozone season sources 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-34.223 CAIR NOX ozone season permits 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-34.225 CAIR NOX ozone season allowance allocations 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-34.226 CAIR NOX ozone season allowance tracking system 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-34.227 CAIR NOX ozone season allowance transfers 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-34.228 CAIR NOX ozone season monitoring and reporting 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 567-34.229 CAIR NOX ozone season opt-in units 7/12/06 8/6/07, 72 FR 43539 Linn County Chapter 10 Linn County Air Quality Ordinance, Chapter 10 1/30/15 9/28/15, 80 FR 44870 The following definitions are not SIP-approved in Chapter 10.2; Anaerobic lagoon, Biomass, Chemical processing plants (ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS code 325193 or 312140 are not included in this definition); Federally Enforceable; Greenhouse gases; Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT); MACT floor. The following sections are not SIP approved: 10.4(1), Title V Permits; 10.5(9)“b” Locally Required Permits; Exemptions from the Authorization to Install Permit to Operate Requirements; 10.5(9) “ll”, Exemption for production painting, adhesive or coating units; 10.8(2)“b” Emissions From Fuel-Burning Equipment; Emission Limitation; 10.8(3) Emissions From Fuel-Burning Equipment; Exemptions for Residential Heaters Burning Solid Fuels; 10.8(4) Emissions from Fuel-Burning Equipment; Nuisance Conditions for Fuel Burning Equipment; 10.9(2), NSPS; 10.9(3), Emission Standards for HAPs; 10.9(4), Emission Standards for HAPs for Source Categories; 10.10(4) Variance from rules; 10.11, Emission of Objectionable Odors; 10.15, Variances, 10.17(13) Continuous Emissions Monitoring from Acid Rain Program 10.17(13) Continuous Emissions Monitoring from Acid Rain Program, and 10.24, Penalty. Polk County Chapter V Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations Air Pollution Chapter V 08/06/09 7/06/10, 75 FR 38745 Article I, Section 5-2, definition of “variance”; Article VI, Sections 5-16(n), (o) and (p); Article VIII; Article IX, Sections 5-27(3) and (4); Article X, Section 5-28 subsections (a) through (c); Article XIII, and Article XVI, Section 5-75 are not a part of the SIP.

    (d) EPA-approved State source-specific permits.

    EPA-Approved Iowa Source-Specific Orders/Permits Name of source Order/Permit No. State effective
  • date
  • EPA Approval
  • date
  • Explanation
    (1) Archer-Daniels Midland Company 90-AQ-10 3/25/91 11/1/91, 56 FR 56158 (2) Interstate Power Company 89-AQ-04 2/21/90 11/1/91, 56 FR 56158 (3) Grain Processing Corporation 74-A-015-S 9/18/95 12/1/97, 62 FR 63454 (4) Grain Processing Corporation 79-A-194-S 9/18/95 12/1/97, 62 FR 63454 (5) Grain Processing Corporation 79-A-195-S 9/18/95 12/1/97, 62 FR 63454 (6) Grain Processing Corporation 95-A-374 9/18/95 12/1/97, 62 FR 63454 (7) Muscatine Power and Water 74-A-175-S 9/14/95 12/1/97, 62 FR 63454 (8) Muscatine Power and Water 95-A-373 9/14/95 12/1/97, 62 FR 63454 (9) Monsanto Corporation 76-A-161S3 7/18/96 12/1/97, 62 FR 63454 (10) Monsanto Corporation 76-A-265S3 7/18/96 12/1/97, 62 FR 63454 (11) IES Utilities, Inc 97-AQ-20 11/20/98 3/11/99, 64 FR 12087 SO2 Control Plan for Cedar Rapids. (12) Archer-Daniels-Midland Corporation SO2 Emission Control Plan 9/14/98 3/11/99, 64 FR 12087 ADM Corn Processing SO2 Control Plan for Cedar Rapids. (13) Linwood Mining and Minerals Corporation 98-AQ-07 3/13/98 3/18/99, 64 FR 13343 PM10 control plan for Buffalo. (14) Lafarge Corporation 98-AQ-08 3/13/98 3/18/99, 64 FR 13343 PM10 control plan for Buffalo. (15) Holnam, Inc A.C.O. 1999-AQ-31 9/2/99 11/6/02, 67 FR 67563 For a list of the 47 permits issued for individual emission points see IDNR letters to Holnam, Inc., dated 7/24/01. (16) Holnam, Inc Consent Amendment to A.C.O. 1999-AQ-31 5/16/01 11/6/02, 67 FR 67563 For a list of the 47 permits issued for individual emission points see IDNR letters to Holnam, Inc., dated 7/24/01. (17) Holnam, Inc Permits for 17-01-009, Project Nos. 99-511 and 00-468. 7/24/01 11/6/02, 67 FR 67563 For a list of the 47 permits issued for individual emission points see IDNR letters to Holnam, Inc., dated 7/24/01. (18) Lehigh Portland Cement Company A.C.O. 1999-AQ-32 9/2/99 11/6/02, 67 FR 67563 For a list of the 41 permits issued for individual emission points see IDNR letters to Lehigh dated 7/24/01 and 2/18/02. (19) Lehigh Portland Cement Company Permits for plant No. 17-01-005, Project Nos. 99-631 and 02-037 2/18/02 11/6/02, 67 FR 67563 For a list of the 41 permits issued for individual emission points see IDNR letters to Lehigh dated 7/24/01 and 2/18/02. (20) Blackhawk Foundry and Machine Company A.C.O. 03-AQ-51 12/4/03 6/10/04, 69 FR 32454 Together with the permits listed below this order comprises the PM10 control strategy for Davenport, Iowa. (21) Blackhawk Foundry and Machine Company Permit No. 02-A-116 (Cold Box Core Machine) 8/19/02 6/10/04, 69 FR 32454 Provisions of the permit that relate to pollutants other than PM10 are not approved by EPA as part of this SIP. (22) Blackhawk Foundry and Machine Company Permit No. 02-A-290(Wheelabrator #2 and Casting Sorting) 8/19/02 6/10/04, 69 FR 32454 Provisions of the permit that relate to pollutants other than PM10 are not approved by EPA as part of this SIP. (23) Blackhawk Foundry and Machine Company Permit No. 02-A-291 (Mold Sand Silo) 8/19/02 6/10/04, 69 FR 32454 Provisions of the permit that relate to pollutants other than PM10 are not approved by EPA as part of this SIP. (24) Blackhawk Foundry and Machine Company Permit No. 02-A-292 (Bond Storage) 8/19/02 6/10/04, 69 FR 32454 Provisions of the permit that relate to pollutants other than PM10 are not approved by EPA as part of this SIP. (25) Blackhawk Foundry and Machine Company Permit No. 02-A-293 (Induction Furnace and Aluminum Sweat Furnace) 8/19/02 6/10/04, 69 FR 32454 Provisions of the permit that relate to pollutants other than PM10 are not approved by EPA as part of this SIP. (26) Blackhawk Foundry and Machine Company Permit No. 77-A-114-S1 (Wheelabrator #1 & Grinding) 8/19/02 6/10/04, 69 FR 32454 Provisions of the permit that relate to pollutants other than PM10 are not approved by EPA as part of this SIP. (27) Blackhawk Foundry and Machine Company Permit No. 84-A-055-S1 (Cupola ladle, Pour deck ladle, Sand shakeout, Muller, Return sand #1, Sand cooler, Sand screen, and Return sand #2) 8/19/02 6/10/04, 69 FR 32454 Provisions of the permit that relate to pollutants other than PM10 are not approved by EPA as part of this SIP. (28) Blackhawk Foundry and Machine Company Permit No. 72-A-060-S5 (Cupola) 8/19/02 6/10/04, 69 FR 32454 Provisions of the permit that relate to pollutants other than PM10 are not approved by EPA as part of this SIP. (29) Grain Processing Corporation Administrative Consent Order NO.2014-AQ-A1 2/14/14 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 The last sentence of Paragraph 5, Section III and Section VI are not approved by EPA as part of the SIP. (30) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 74-A-175-S3 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (31) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 80-A-006-S3 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (32) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 80-A-007-S3 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (33) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 80-A-191-P2 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (34) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 80-A-193-S3 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (35) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 80-A-194-S3 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (36) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 80-A-197-S2 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (37) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 80-A-200-S1 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (38) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 80-A-201-S1 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (39) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 80-A-202-S2 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (40) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 93-A-283-S2 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (41) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 93-A-288-S3 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (42) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 93-A-289-S3 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (43) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 93-A-290-S3 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (44) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 93-A-373-P2 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (45) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 00-A-638-S3 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (46) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 00-A-639-S1 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (47) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 00-A-689-S1 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (48) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 00-A-684-S1 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (49) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 00-A-686-S1 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (50) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 00-A-687-S1 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (51) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 01-A-193-S2 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (52) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 01-A-218-S1 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (53) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 01-A-456-S1 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (54) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 01-A-617-S1 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (55) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 04-A-618-S1 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (56) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 04-A-619-S1 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (57) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 11-A-562-S1 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (58) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-139 7/23/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (59) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-140 7/23/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (60) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-141 7/23/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (61) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-142 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (62) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-143 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (63) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-146 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (64) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-147 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (65) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-148 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (66) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-150 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (67) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-151 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (68) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-152 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (69) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-153 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (70) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-154 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (71) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-155 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (72) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-157 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (73) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-158 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (74) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-159 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (75) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-161 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (76) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 80-A-196-S3 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (77) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 93-A-286-S4 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (78) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 01-A-457-S4 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (79) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 06-A-650-S2 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (80) Muscatine Power and Water Permit No. 13-A-160 7/22/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (81) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 93-A-251-S5 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (82) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 93-A-252-S5 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (83) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 93-A-253-S5 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (84) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 93-A-254-S3 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (85) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 00-A-1086-S2 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (86) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 00-A-1087-S2 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (87) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 00-A-1088-S2 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (88) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 93-A-255-S7 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (89) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 96-A-629-S3 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (90) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 96-A-630-S5 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (91) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 96-A-631-S3 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (92) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 96-A-636-S3 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (93) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 00-A-529-S2 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (94) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 00-A-530-S2 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (95) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 00-A-531-S2 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (96) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 00-A-532-S2 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (97) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 00-A-533-S2 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (98) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 93-A-256-S6 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (99) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 96-A-632-S5 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (100) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 96-A-633-S5 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (101) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 96-A-634-S5 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (102) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 96-A-635-S5 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (103) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 00-A-1089-S2 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (104) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 00-A-1090-S2 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (105) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 00-A-1091-S2 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (106) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 10-A-043-S2 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (107) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 09-A-009-S2 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (108) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 09-A-010-S2 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025 (109) Union Tank Car Company Permit No. 94-A-434-S2 4/08/13 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025

    (e) The EPA approved nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures.

    EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory
  • SIP provision
  • Applicable geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State submittal
  • date
  • EPA Approval
  • date
  • Explanation
    (1) Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan Statewide 1/27/72 5/31/72, 37 FR 10842 (2) Request for a Two Year Extension to Meet the NAAQS Council Bluffs 1/27/72 5/31/72, 37 FR 10842 Correction notice published
  •  3/2/76.
  • (3) Revisions to Appendices D and G Statewide 2/2/72 5/31/72, 37 FR 10842 Correction notice published
  •  3/2/76.
  • (4) Source Surveillance and Record Maintenance Statements Statewide 4/14/72 3/2/76, 41 FR 8956 [FRL 484-4]. (5) Statement Regarding Public Availability of Emissions Data Statewide 5/2/72 3/2/76, 41 FR 8956 [FRL 484-4]. (7) Letter Describing the Certificates of Acceptance for Local Air Pollution Control Programs Linn County, Polk County 12/14/72 10/1/76, 41 FR 43406 [FRL 616-1]. (8) High Air Pollution Episode Contingency Plan Statewide 6/20/73 10/1/76, 41 FR 43406 [FRL 616-1]. (9) Summary of Public Hearing on Revised Rules Which Were Submitted on July 17, 1975 Statewide 9/3/75 10/1/76, 41 FR 43406 [FRL 616-1]. (10) Air Quality Modeling to Support Sulfur Dioxide Emission Standards Statewide 3/4/77 6/1/77, 42 FR 27892 [FRL 739-1]. (11) Nonattainment Plans Mason City, Davenport, Cedar Rapids, Des Moines 6/22/79 3/6/80, 45 FR 14561 [FRL 1427-5]. (12) Information on VOC Sources to Support the Nonattainment Plan Linn County 10/8/79 3/6/80, 45 FR 14561 [FRL 1427-5]. (13) Information and Commitments Pertaining to Legally Enforceable RACT Rules to Support the Nonattainment Plan Linn County 11/16/79 3/6/80, 45 FR 14561 [FRL 1427-5]. (14) Lead Plan Statewide 8/19/80 3/20/81, 46 FR 17778 [A-7-FRL-1776-5]. (15) Letter to Support the Lead Plan Statewide 1/19/81 3/20/81, 46 FR 17778 [A-7-FRL-1776-5]. (16) Nonattainment Plans to Attain Secondary Standards Mason City, Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, Davenport, Keokuk, Council Bluffs, Fort Dodge, Sioux City, Clinton, Marshalltown, Muscatine, Waterloo 4/18/80 4/17/81, 46 FR 22368 [A-7-FRL 1792-2]. (17) Information to Support the Particulate Matter Nonattainment Plan Mason City, Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, Davenport, Keokuk, Council Bluffs, Fort Dodge, Sioux City, Clinton, Marshalltown, Muscatine, Waterloo 9/16/80 4/17/81, 46 FR 22368 [A-7-FRL 1792-2]. (18) Information to Support the Particulate Matter Nonattainment Plan Mason City, Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, Davenport, Keokuk, Council Bluffs, Fort Dodge, Sioux City, Clinton, Marshalltown, Muscatine, Waterloo 11/17/80 4/17/81, 46 FR 22368 [A-7-FRL 1792-2]. (19) Schedule for Studying Nontraditional Sources of Particulate Matter and for Implementing the Results Mason City, Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, Davenport, Keokuk, Council Bluffs, Fort Dodge, Sioux City, Clinton, Marshalltown, Muscatine, Waterloo 6/26/81 3/5/82, 47 FR 9462 [A-7-FRL-2057-7]. (20) Air Monitoring Strategy Statewide 7/15/81 4/12/82, 47 FR 15583 [A-5-FRL-2076-5]. (21) Letter of Commitment to Revise Unapprovable Portions of Chapter 22 Statewide 5/14/85 9/12/85, 50 FR 37176 [EPA Action IA 1582; A-7-FRL-2895-9]. (22) Letter of Commitment to Submit Stack Height Regulations and to Implement the EPA's Regulations until the State's Rules Are Approved Statewide 4/22/86 7/11/86, 51 FR 25199 [EPA Action IA 2060; A-7-FRL-3046-8]. (23) Letter of Commitment to Implement the Stack Height Regulations in a Manner Consistent with the EPA's Stack Height Regulations with Respect to NSR/PSD Regulations Statewide 4/22/87 6/26/87, 52 FR 23981 [A-7-FRL-3216-5]. (24) PM10 SIP Statewide 10/28/88 8/15/89, 54 FR 33536 [FRL-3627-7]. (25) Letter Pertaining to NOX Rules and Analysis Which Certifies the Material Was Adopted by the State on October 17, 1990 Statewide 11/8/90 2/13/91, 56 FR 5757 [FRL-3903-5]. (26) SO2 Plan Clinton 3/13/91 11/1/91, 56 FR 56158 [IA-21-5182; FRL-4014-4]. (27) Letter Withdrawing Variance Provisions Polk County 10/23/91 11/29/91, 56 FR 60924 [FRL-IA-4-1-5308; FRL-4034-5] Correction notice published 1/26/93. (28) Letter Concerning Open Burning Exemptions Statewide 10/3/91 1/22/92, 57 FR 2472 [IA5-1-5380; FRL-4039-5]. (29) Compliance Sampling Manual Statewide 1/5/93 5/12/93, 58 FR 27939 [IA-8-1-5750; FRL-4618-6]. (30) Small Business Assistance Plan Statewide 12/22/92 9/27/93, 58 FR 50266 [IA-9-1-5859; FRL-4734-5]. (31) Voluntary Operating Permit Program Statewide 12/8/94, 2/16/96, 2/27/96 4/30/96, 61 FR 18958 [IA 003-1003, FRL-5455-4]. (32) SO2 Plan Muscatine 6/19/96
  • 5/21/97
  • 12/1/97, 62 FR 63454 [IA 036-1036, FRL-5929-3].
    (33) SO2 Maintenance Plan Muscatine 4/25/97 3/19/98, 63 FR 13343 [IA 040-1040(a), FRL-5980-2]. (34) SO2 Control Plan Cedar Rapids 9/11/98 3/11/99, 64 FR 12087 [IA 058-1058a; FRL-6308-5]. (35) PM10 Control Plan Buffalo, Iowa 10/1/98 3/18/99, 64 FR 13346 [IA 059-1059a; FRL-6310-7]. (36) CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP—Interstate Transport Statewide 11/22/06 3/8/07, 72 FR 10380 [EPA-R07-OAR-2006-1015; FRL-8285-1]. (37) SO2 Maintenance Plan for the Second 10-year Period Muscatine 4/5/07 8/1/07; 72 FR 41900 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0477, FRL-8448-5]. (38) CAA 110(a)(1) and (2)-Ozone Infrastructure SIP Statewide 6/15/07 3/04/08; 73 FR 11554 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-1180, FRL-8535-9]. (39) Regional Haze plan for the first implementation period Statewide 3/25/08 6/26/12, 77 FR 38007 [EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0153, FRL-9688-1] § 52.842(a); Limited Approval.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19588 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0454; FRL-9932-35-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Movement of the Northern Virginia Area From Virginia's Nonattainment Area List to its Maintenance Area List AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions move the localities (Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudon, and Prince William; Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park) of Northern Virginia from Virginia's list of nonattainment areas to its list of maintenance areas for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on October 13, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 14, 2015. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0454 by one of the following methods:

    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    B. Email: [email protected].

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0454, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division, Mail code 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0454. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maria A. Pino, (215) 814-2181, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Particle pollution, or particulate matter, is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Particle pollution includes “inhalable coarse particles,” with diameters larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers and “fine particles,” with diameters that are 2.5 micrometers and smaller. Due to their small size, these particles often contribute to adverse health effects. EPA is required to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the authority of the CAA, for the purpose of controlling particle pollution. The first NAAQS for PM2.5 were established on July 16, 1997 (62 FR 38652). EPA promulgated an annual standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), based on a three-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations (the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard). In the same rulemaking action, EPA promulgated a 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m3, based on a three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.

    EPA published air quality area designations for the 1997 PM2.5 standards on January 5, 2005. In its rulemaking action, EPA designated the Washington, DC-MD-VA Area as nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. The Washington, DC-MD-VA area (Washington Area) is composed of the District of Columbia; Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park in Virginia (the Northern Virginia area); and Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince George's Counties in Maryland.

    The District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE), the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), (collectively, the States), collaborated to develop redesignation requests and maintenance plans for the Washington Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA received the 1997 annual PM2.5 redesignation requests and maintenance plans for the Washington Area from DDOE on June 3, 2013, from MDE on July 10, 2013, and from VADEQ on June 3, 2013. The Washington Area maintenance plan included motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) for the Washington Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard, which EPA approved for transportation conformity purposes. The emissions inventories included in the Washington Area maintenance plans were subsequently supplemented by the States to provide for emissions estimates of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia. The supplemental inventories were submitted to EPA on July 22, 2013 by DDOE, on July 26, 2013 by MDE, and on July 17, 2013 by VADEQ.

    On October 6, 2014 (79 FR 60081), the EPA approved the States' redesignation requests and maintenance plans for the Washington Area, including Northern Virginia, for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. Therefore, the designation of the Northern Virginia area, as part of the Washington Area, was changed from nonattainment to attainment. Subsequently, Virginia changed its lists of areas in nonattainment and maintenance within its regulations, located in 9 VAC5 Chapter 20, to reflect EPA's redesignation of the Washington Area.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On June 1, 2015, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a formal revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of a regulatory change that moves the Northern Virginia area (Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William; Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park), which was part of the Washington Area, from the list of nonattainment areas found in regulation 9 VAC 5-20-204 to the list of maintenance areas found in regulation 9 VAC 5-20-203.

    III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.

    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code § 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

    IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the proposed regulatory amendment which moves the localities in Northern Virginia (Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William; Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park) from the list of nonattainment areas found in regulation 9 VAC 5-20-204 to the list of maintenance areas found in regulation 9 VAC 5-20-203. EPA finds this revision to the SIP is in accordance with CAA requirements, including sections 107 and 110 of the CAA.

    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on October 13, 2015 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 14, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking action, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of changes to 9 VAC5 Chapter 20, specifically 9VAC5-20-203 and 9VAC5-20-204, described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (See the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

    • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP revision applies to Northern Virginia and does not apply in Indian country, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 13, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action. This action, which moves the localities in Northern Virginia within the Washington Area (Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William; Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park) from the list of nonattainment areas found in regulation 9 VAC 5-20-204 to the list of maintenance areas found in regulation 9 VAC 5-20-203, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.

    Dated: August 4, 2015. William C. Early, Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart VV—Virginia 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entries for Sections 5-20-203 and 5-20-204. The revised text reads as follows:
    § 52.2420 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes State citation Title/Subject State effective date EPA Approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * 9 VAC 5, Chapter 20 General Provisions *         *         *         *         *         *         * Part II Air Quality Programs *         *         *         *         *         *         * 5-20-203 Air Quality Maintenance
  • Areas
  • 3/11/15 8/14/15 [Insert Federal Register Citation] List of maintenance areas revised to include Northern Virginia localities for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
    5-20-204 Nonattainment Areas 3/11/15 8/14/15 [Insert Federal Register Citation] List of nonattainment areas revised to exclude Northern Virginia localities for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-20023 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0991; EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0435; FRL-9932-15-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Indiana and Ohio; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve elements of state implementation plan (SIP) submissions by Indiana regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and by Ohio regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the CAA for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the requirements of the CAA. The proposed rulemaking for Ohio's 2010 SO2 infrastructure submittal associated with today's final action was published on July 25, 2014, and EPA received one comment letter during the comment period, which ended on August 25, 2015. In the July 25, 2014 rulemaking, EPA also proposed approval for Ohio's 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 infrastructure submittals. Those approvals have been finalized in separate rulemakings. The proposed rulemaking for Indiana's 2010 NO2 and SO2 infrastructure submittals associated with today's final action was published on February 27, 2015, and EPA received one comment letter during the comment period, which ended on March 30, 2015. The concerns raised in these letters, as well as EPA's responses, are addressed in this final action.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on September 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0991 (2010 NO2 infrastructure elements) or EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0435 (2010 SO2 infrastructure elements). All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly-available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Sarah Arra at (312) 886-9401 before visiting the Region 5 office.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-9401, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows:

    I. What is the background of these SIP submissions? II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed rulemaking? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background of these SIP submissions? A. What does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses infrastructure SIP submissions from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted on January 15, 2013, for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS and on May 22, 2013, for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. This rulemaking also addresses infrastructure SIP submissions from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) submitted on June 7, 2013, for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    B. Why did the state make this SIP submission?

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for NO2 and SO2 already meet those requirements.

    EPA has highlighted this statutory requirement in multiple guidance documents, including the most recent guidance document entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)” issued on September 13, 2013.

    C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon Indiana and Ohio's SIP submissions that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and also the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for Indiana. The requirement for states to make SIP submissions of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.

    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

    This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (“SSM”) at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (collectively referred to as “director's discretion”); and, (iii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Instead, EPA has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas in separate rulemaking. A detailed rationale, history, and interpretation related to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in our May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, “Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS” in the section, “What is the scope of this rulemaking?” (see 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245).

    In addition, EPA is not acting on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interstate transport significant contribution and interference with maintenance for the Indiana and Ohio 2010 SO2 submittals, a portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility, and 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to visibility for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 submittals for Indiana and the 2010 SO2 submittal for Ohio, and portions of 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to PSD for Ohio's 2010 SO2 submittal. EPA has already taken action on the portion related to PSD for Ohio's 2010 SO2 infrastructure submittal in the February 27, 2015 rulemaking (see 80 FR 10591). EPA is also not acting on section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D, in its entirety. The rationale for not acting on elements of these requirements was included in EPA's August 19, 2013, proposed rulemaking or is discussed below in today's response to comments.

    II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed rulemaking?

    EPA received one comment letter from the Sierra Club regarding its July 25, 2014, proposed rulemaking (79 FR 43338) on Ohio's 2010 SO2 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP submittal. EPA did not receive any comments on its February 27, 2015, proposed rulemaking (80 FR 10644) on Indiana's 2010 NO2 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP, but did receive one comment from the Sierra Club relevant to the SO2 submittal. The majority of the SO2-related comments from the Sierra Club for Indiana and Ohio are identical. The comments are summarized and responded to together; however, the few differences in the comments are explicitly pointed out.

    Comment 1: Sierra Club contends that the plain language of section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and the legislative history of the CAA require the inclusion of enforceable emission limits in an infrastructure SIP to prevent NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated nonattainment. Sierra Club also asserts that the Ohio and Indiana 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP revisions did not revise the existing SO2 emission limits in response to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and failed to comport with CAA requirements for SIPs to establish enforceable emission limits that are adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated nonattainment.

    The Sierra Club states that, on its face, the CAA “requires I-SIPs to be adequate to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS.” In support, the Sierra Club quotes the language in section 110(a)(1) which requires states to adopt a plan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, and the language in section 110(a)(2)(A) which requires SIPs to include enforceable emissions limitations as may be necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA and which Sierra Club claims include the maintenance plan requirement. Sierra Club notes the CAA definition of emission limit and reads these provisions together to require “enforceable emission limits on source emissions sufficient to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS.”

    Response 1: EPA disagrees that section 110 is clear “on its face” and must be interpreted in the manner suggested by Sierra Club. Section 110 is only one provision that is part of the complicated structure governing implementation of the NAAQS program under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and it must be interpreted in the context of not only that structure, but also of the historical evolution of that structure. In light of the revisions to section 110 since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more specific planning requirements of the CAA, EPA interprets the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) that the plan provide for “implementation, maintenance and enforcement” to mean that the infrastructure SIP must contain enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that the state demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate state personnel and an enforcement program. With regard to the requirement for emission limitations, EPA has interpreted this to mean, for purposes of section 110, that the state may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit. As EPA stated in “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” dated September 13, 2013 (Infrastructure SIP Guidance), “[t]he conceptual purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure that the air agency's SIP contains the necessary structural requirements for the new or revised NAAQS, whether by establishing that the SIP already contains the necessary provisions, by making a substantive SIP revision to update the SIP, or both. Overall, the infrastructure SIP submission process provides an opportunity . . . to review the basic structural requirements of the air agency's air quality management program in light of each new or revised NAAQS.” Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p. 2.

    The Sierra Club makes general allegations that Ohio and Indiana do not have sufficient protective measures to prevent SO2 NAAQS exceedances. EPA addressed the adequacy of Ohio and Indiana's infrastructure SIPs for 110(a)(2)(A) purposes to meet applicable requirements of the CAA in the proposed rulemakings and explained why the SIPs include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures necessary for maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS throughout the state. For Ohio, these limits are found in Chapter 3745-18, Sulfur Dioxide Limitations, of Ohio's SIP. For Indiana, these limits are found in 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 7-1.1, 326 IAC 7-4, and 326 IAC 7-4.1. As discussed in the proposed rulemakings, EPA finds that these provisions adequately address section 110(a)(2)(A) to aid in attaining and/or maintaining the applicable NAAQS, and finds that Ohio and Indiana have demonstrated that they have the necessary tools to implement and enforce these NAAQS.

    Comment 2: The Sierra Club cites 40 CFR 51.112(a), providing that each plan “must demonstrate that the measures, rules and regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the [NAAQS].” It asserts that this regulation requires all SIPs to include emissions limits necessary to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The Sierra Club states that “[a]lthough these regulations were developed before the Clean Air Act separated infrastructure SIPs from nonattainment SIPs—a process that began with the 1977 amendments and was completed by the 1990 amendments—the regulations apply to I-SIPs.” It relies on a statement in the preamble to the 1986 action restructuring and consolidating provisions in part 51, in which EPA stated that “[i]t is beyond the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address the provisions of Part D of the Act . . . .” 51 FR 40656, 40656 (November 7, 1986).

    Response 2: The Sierra Club's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its argument that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limits “adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances” and adequate or sufficient to ensure the maintenance of the NAAQS is not supported. As an initial matter, EPA notes and the Sierra Club recognizes that this regulatory provision was initially promulgated and “restructured and consolidated” prior to the CAA Amendments of 1990, in which Congress removed all references to “attainment” in section 110(a)(2)(A). In addition, it is clear on its face that 40 CFR 51.112 applies to plans specifically designed to attain the NAAQS. EPA interprets these provisions to apply when states are developing “control strategy” SIPs such as the detailed attainment and maintenance plans required under other provisions of the CAA, as amended in 1977 and again in 1990, such as sections 175A, 182, and 192. The Sierra Club suggests that these provisions must apply to section 110 SIPs because in the preamble to EPA's action “restructuring and consolidating” provisions in part 51, EPA stated that the new attainment demonstration provisions in the 1977 Amendments to the CAA were “beyond the scope” of the rulemaking. It is important to note, however, that EPA's action in 1986 was not to establish new substantive planning requirements, but merely to consolidate and restructure provisions that had previously been promulgated. EPA noted that it had already issued guidance addressing the new “Part D” attainment planning obligations. Also, as to maintenance regulations, EPA expressly stated that it was not making any revisions other than to re-number those provisions. 51 FR at 40657.

    Although EPA was explicit that it was not establishing requirements interpreting the provisions of the new “Part D” of title I of the CAA, it is clear that the regulations being restructured and consolidated were intended to address control strategy plans. In the preamble, EPA clearly stated that 40 CFR 51.112 was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (“Control strategy: SOX and PM (portion)”), 51.14 (“Control strategy: CO, HC, OX and NO2 (portion)”), 51.80 (“Demonstration of attainment: Pb (portion)”), and 51.82 (“Air quality data (portion)”). Id. at 40660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR 51.112 contains consolidated provisions that are focused on control strategy SIPs, and the infrastructure SIP is not such a plan.

    Comment 3: The Sierra Club references two prior EPA rulemaking actions where EPA disapproved or proposed to disapprove SIPs, and claims that they were actions in which EPA relied on section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.112 to reject infrastructure SIPs. It first points to a 2006 partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions to Missouri's existing plan addressing the SO2 NAAQS (71 FR 12623). In that action, EPA cited section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA as a basis for disapproving a revision to the state plan on the basis that the State failed to demonstrate the SIP was sufficient to ensure maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS after revision of an emission limit and cited to 40 CFR 51.112 as requiring that a plan demonstrates the rules in a SIP are adequate to attain the NAAQS. Second, Sierra Club cites a 2013 disapproval of a revision to the SO2 SIP for Indiana, where the revision removed an emission limit that applied to a specific emissions source at a facility in the State (78 FR 78721). In its proposed disapproval, EPA relied on 40 CFR 51.112(a) in proposing to reject the revision, stating that the State had not demonstrated that the emission limit was “redundant, unnecessary, or that its removal would not result in or allow an increase in actual SO2 emissions.” EPA further stated in that proposed disapproval that the State had not demonstrated that removal of the limit would not “affect the validity of the emission rates used in the existing attainment demonstration.”

    The Sierra Club also asserts that EPA stated in its 2013 infrastructure SIP guidance that states could postpone specific requirements for start-up shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), but did not specify the postponement of any other requirements. The commenter concludes that emissions limits ensuring attainment of the standard cannot be delayed.

    Response 3: EPA does not agree that the two prior actions referenced by the Sierra Club establish how EPA reviews infrastructure SIPs. It is clear from both the final Missouri rulemaking and the proposed and final Indiana rulemakings that EPA was not reviewing initial infrastructure SIP submissions under section 110 of the CAA, but rather revisions that would make an already approved SIP designed to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS less stringent. EPA's partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions to restrictions on emissions of sulfur compounds for the Missouri SIP addressed a control strategy SIP and not an infrastructure SIP. The Indiana action provides even less support for the Sierra Club's position. The review in that rule was of a completely different requirement than the section 110(a)(2)(A) SIP. In that case, the State had an approved SO2 attainment plan and was seeking to remove from the SIP provisions relied on as part of the modeled attainment demonstration. EPA proposed that the State had failed to demonstrate under section 110(l) of the CAA why the SIP revision would not result in increased SO2 emissions and thus interfere with attainment of the NAAQS. Nothing in that rulemaking addresses the necessary content of the initial infrastructure SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Rather, it is simply applying the clear statutory requirement that a state must demonstrate why a revision to an approved attainment plan will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS.

    EPA also does not agree that any requirements related to emission limits have been postponed. As stated in a previous response, EPA interprets the requirements under 110(a)(2)(A) to include enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that the state demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate state personnel and an enforcement program. With regard to the requirement for emission limitations, EPA has interpreted this to mean, for purposes of section 110, that the state may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit. Emission limits providing for attainment of a new standard are triggered by the designation process and have a different schedule in the CAA than the submittal of infrastructure SIPs.

    As discussed in detail in the proposed rules, EPA finds that the Ohio and Indiana SIPs meet the appropriate and relevant structural requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS, and that the States have demonstrated that they have the necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS.

    Comment 4: Sierra Club also discusses several cases applying the CAA which it claims support its contention that courts have been clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires enforceable emissions limits in infrastructure SIPs to prevent violations of the NAAQS. Sierra Club first cites to language in Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975), addressing the requirement for “emission limitations” and stating that emission limitations “are specific rules to which operators of pollution sources are subject, and which if enforced should result in ambient air which meet the national standards.” Sierra Club also cites to Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources v. EPA, 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991) for the proposition that the CAA directs EPA to withhold approval of a SIP where it does not ensure maintenance of the NAAQS, and to Mision Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976), which quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA of 1970. The Sierra Club contends that the 1990 Amendments do not alter how courts have interpreted the requirements of section 110, quoting Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004), which in turn quoted section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and also stated that “SIPs must include certain measures Congress specified” to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The Commenter also quotes several additional opinions in this vein. Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The Clean Air Act directs states to develop implementation plans—SIPs—that `assure' attainment and maintenance of [NAAQS] through enforceable emissions limitations”); Hall v. EPA 273 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Each State must submit a [SIP] that specif[ies] the manner in which [NAAQS] will be achieved and maintained within each air quality control region in the State”); Conn. Fund for Env't, Inc. v. EPA, 696 F.2d 169, 172 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (CAA requires SIPs to contain “measures necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance of NAAQS”). Finally, the commenter cites Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000) for the proposition that EPA may not approve a SIP revision that does not demonstrate how the rules would not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

    Response 4: None of the cases the Sierra Club cites support its contention that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that infrastructure SIPs must include detailed plans providing for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas of the state, nor do they shed light on how section 110(a)(2)(A) may reasonably be interpreted. With the exception of Train, none of the cases the Commenter cites concerned the interpretation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA). Rather, the courts reference section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA) in the background sections of decisions in the context of challenges to EPA actions on revisions to SIPs that were required and approved as meeting other provisions of the CAA or in the context of an enforcement action.

    In Train, 421 U.S. 60, the Court was addressing a state revision to an attainment plan submission made pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, the sole statutory provision at that time regulating such submissions. The issue in that case concerned whether changes to requirements that would occur before attainment was required were variances that should be addressed pursuant to the provision governing SIP revisions or were “postponements” that must be addressed under section 110(f) of the CAA of 1970, which contained prescriptive criteria. The Court concluded that EPA reasonably interpreted section 110(f) to not restrict a state's choice of the mix of control measures needed to attain the NAAQS and that revisions to SIPs that would not impact attainment of the NAAQS by the attainment date were not subject to the limits of section 110(f). Thus, the issue was not whether a section 110 SIP needs to provide for attainment or whether emissions limits are needed as part of the SIP; rather the issue was which statutory provision governed when the state wanted to revise the emission limits in its SIP if such revision would not impact attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. To the extent the holding in the case has any bearing on how section 110(a)(2)(A) might be interpreted, it is important to realize that in 1975, when the opinion was issued, section 110(a)(2)(B) (the predecessor to section 110(a)(2)(A)) expressly referenced the requirement to attain the NAAQS, a reference that was removed in 1990.

    The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources was also decided based on the pre-1990 provision of the CAA. At issue was whether EPA properly rejected a revision to an approved plan where the inventories relied on by the state for the updated submission had gaps. The Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in support of EPA's disapproval, but did not provide any interpretation of that provision. Yet, even if the Court had interpreted that provision, EPA notes that it was modified by Congress in 1990; thus, this decision has little bearing on the issue here.

    At issue in Mision Industrial, 547 F.2d 123, was the definition of “emissions limitation,” not whether section 110 requires the state to demonstrate how all areas of the state will attain and maintain the NAAQS as part of their infrastructure SIPs. The language from the opinion the Sierra Club quotes does not interpret but rather merely describes section 110(a)(2)(A). Sierra Club does not raise any concerns about whether the measures relied on by the state in the infrastructure SIP are “emissions limitations,” and the decision in this case has no bearing here.1

    1 While the Sierra Club does contend that the State shouldn't be allowed to rely on emission reductions that were developed for the prior SO2 standards (which we address herein), it does not claim that any of the measures are not “emissions limitations” within the definition of the CAA.

    In Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 F.3d 1174, the Court was reviewing a Federal implementation plan (FIP) that EPA promulgated after a long history of the state failing to submit an adequate SIP in response to EPA's finding under section 110(k)(5) that the previously approved SIP was substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, which triggered the state's duty to submit a new SIP to show how it would remedy that deficiency and attain the NAAQS. The Court cited generally sections 107 and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA for the proposition that SIPs should assure attainment and maintenance of NAAQS through emission limitations, but this language was not part of the Court's holding in the case, which focused instead on whether EPA's finding of SIP inadequacy, disapproval of portions of the state's responsive SIP and attainment demonstration, and adoption of a remedial FIP were lawful.

    The Sierra Club suggests that Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 540 U.S. 461, stands for the proposition that the 1990 CAA Amendments do not alter how courts interpret section 110. This claim is inaccurate. Rather, the Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(A), which, as noted previously, differs from the pre-1990 version of that provision, and the Court makes no mention of the changed language. Furthermore, the Sierra Club also quotes the Court's statement that “SIPs must include certain measures Congress specified,” but that statement specifically referenced the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires an enforcement program and a program for the regulation of the modification and construction of new sources. Notably, at issue in that case was the state's “new source” permitting program, not its infrastructure SIP.

    Two of the cases the Sierra Club cites, Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality, 230 F.3d 181, and Hall, 273 F.3d 1146, interpret CAA section 110(l), the provision governing “revisions” to plans, and not the initial plan submission requirement under section 110(a)(2) for a new or revised NAAQS, such as the infrastructure SIP at issue in this instance. In those cases, the courts cited section 110(a)(2)(A) solely for the purpose of providing a brief background of the CAA.

    Finally, in Conn. Fund for Env't, Inc. v. EPA, 696 F.2d 169 (D.C. Cir. 1982), the D.C. Circuit was reviewing EPA action on a control measure SIP provision which adjusted the percent of sulfur permissible in fuel oil. The D.C. Circuit focused on whether EPA needed to evaluate effects of the SIP revision on one pollutant or effects of change on all possible pollutants; therefore, the D.C. Circuit did not address required measures for infrastructure SIPs, and nothing in the opinion addressed whether infrastructure SIPs needed to contain measures to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

    Comment 5: Citing section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, Sierra Club contends that EPA may not approve the proposed infrastructure SIPs because they do not include enforceable one hour SO2 emission limits for sources that show NAAQS exceedances through modeling. Sierra Club asserts the proposed infrastructure SIPs fail to include enforceable one hour SO2 emissions limits or other required measures to ensure attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in areas not designated nonattainment as required by section 110(a)(2)(A). Sierra Club asserts that emission limits are especially important for meeting the 2010 SO2 NAAQS because SO2 impacts are strongly source-oriented. Sierra Club states that coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) are large contributors to SO2 emissions but contends that Ohio and Indiana did not demonstrate that emissions allowed by the proposed infrastructure SIPs from such large sources of SO2 will ensure compliance with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    For Ohio, the Sierra Club claims that the proposed infrastructure SIP would allow major sources to continue operating with present emission limits. Sierra Club then refers to air dispersion modeling it conducted for three coal-fired EGUs in Ohio including the Cardinal Power Plant (Brilliant), the Sammis Station (Stratton), and the Zimmer Plant (Moscow). Sierra Club asserts that the results of the air dispersion modeling it conducted employing EPA's AERMOD program for modeling used the plants' allowable and actual emissions, and showed that the plants could cause exceedances of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS with either allowable emissions at all three facilities or actual emissions at the Zimmer Plant.2

    2 Sierra Club asserts its modeling followed protocols pursuant to 40 CFR part 50, Appendix W, EPA's March 2011 guidance for implementing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and EPA's December 2013 SO2 NAAQS Designation Technical Assistance Document for the for both Indiana and Ohio.

    For Indiana, the Sierra Club also claims that the proposed infrastructure SIP would allow major sources to continue operating with present emission limits. Sierra Club then refers to air dispersion modeling it conducted for three coal-fired EGUs in Indiana, including the A.B. Brown Plant (Mount Vernon), the Clifty Creek Plant (Madison), and the Gibson Plant (Owensville). Sierra Club asserts that the results of the air dispersion modeling it conducted employing EPA's AERMOD program for modeling used the plants' allowable and actual emissions, and showed the plants could cause exceedances of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS with either allowable or actual emissions at all three facilities.

    Based on the modeling, Sierra Club asserts that the Ohio and Indiana SO2 infrastructure SIP submittals authorize these EGUs to cause exceedances of the NAAQS with allowable and actual emission rates, and therefore that the infrastructure SIP fails to include adequate enforceable emission limitations or other required measures for sources of SO2 sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As a result, Sierra Club claims EPA must disapprove Ohio and Indiana's proposed SIP revisions. In addition, Sierra Club asserts that additional emission limits should be imposed on the plants that ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS at all times.

    Response 5: EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA is reasonably interpreted to require states to submit SIPs that reflect the first step in their planning for attainment and maintenance of a new or revised NAAQS. These SIP revisions, also known as infrastructure SIPs, should contain enforceable control measures and a demonstration that the state has the available tools and authority to develop and implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS. In light of the structure of the CAA, EPA's long-standing position regarding infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement a NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and maintenance plans for each individual area of the state. As mentioned above, with regard to the requirement for emission limitations, EPA has interpreted this to mean that states may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit.

    EPA's interpretation that infrastructure SIPs are more general planning SIPs is consistent with the CAA as understood in light of its history and structure. When Congress enacted the CAA in 1970, it did not include provisions requiring states and the EPA to label areas as attainment or nonattainment. Rather, states were required to include all areas of the state in “air quality control regions” (AQCRs) and section 110 set forth the core substantive planning provisions for these AQCRs. At that time, Congress anticipated that states would be able to address air pollution quickly pursuant to the very general planning provisions in section 110 and could bring all areas into compliance with a new NAAQS within five years. Moreover, at that time, section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that the section 110 plan provide for “attainment” of the NAAQS and section 110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must include “emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS].” In 1977, Congress recognized that the existing structure was not sufficient and that many areas were still violating the NAAQS. At that time, Congress for the first time added provisions requiring states and EPA to identify whether areas of a state were violating the NAAQS (i.e., were nonattainment) or were meeting the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment) and established specific planning requirements in section 172 for areas not meeting the NAAQS. In 1990, many areas still had air quality not meeting the NAAQS, and Congress again amended the CAA and added yet another layer of more prescriptive planning requirements for each of the NAAQS. At that same time, Congress modified section 110 to remove references to the section 110 SIP providing for attainment, including removing pre-existing section 110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and renumbering subparagraph (B) as section 110(a)(2)(A). Additionally, Congress replaced the clause “as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS]” with “as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.” Thus, the CAA has significantly evolved in the more than 40 years since it was originally enacted. While at one time section 110 of the CAA did provide the only detailed SIP planning provisions for states and specified that such plans must provide for attainment of the NAAQS, under the structure of the current CAA, section 110 is only the initial stepping-stone in the planning process for a specific NAAQS. In addition, more detailed, later-enacted provisions govern the substantive planning process, including planning for attainment of the NAAQS, depending upon how air quality status is judged under other provisions of the CAA, such as the designations process under section 107.

    As stated in response to a previous comment, EPA asserts that section 110 of the CAA is only one provision that is part of the complicated structure governing implementation of the NAAQS program under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and it must be interpreted in the context of not only that structure, but also of the historical evolution of that structure. In light of the revisions to section 110 since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more specific planning requirements of the CAA, EPA reasonably interprets the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA that the plan provide for “implementation, maintenance and enforcement” to mean that the infrastructure SIP must contain enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that the state must demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS, such as an adequate monitoring network and an enforcement program. As discussed above, EPA has interpreted the requirement for emission limitations in section 110 to mean that the state may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit. Finally, as EPA stated in the Infrastructure SIP Guidance which specifically provides guidance to states in addressing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, “[t]he conceptual purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure that the air agency's SIP contains the necessary structural requirements for the new or revised NAAQS, whether by establishing that the SIP already contains the necessary provisions, by making a substantive SIP revision to update the SIP, or both.” Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p. 2.

    On April 12, 2012, EPA explained its expectations regarding the 2010 SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs via letters to each of the states. EPA communicated in the April 2012 letters that all states were expected to submit SIPs meeting the “infrastructure” SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA by June 2013. At the time, the EPA was undertaking a stakeholder outreach process to continue to develop possible approaches for determining attainment status with the SO2 NAAQS and implementing this NAAQS. EPA was abundantly clear in the April 2012 letters to states that EPA did not expect states to submit substantive attainment demonstrations or modeling demonstrations showing attainment for potentially unclassifiable areas in infrastructure SIPs due in June 2013, as EPA had previously suggested in its 2010 SO2 NAAQS preamble based upon information available at the time and in prior draft implementation guidance in 2011 while EPA was gathering public comment. The April 2012 letters to states recommended states focus infrastructure SIPs due in June 2013, such as Ohio and Indiana's SO2 infrastructure SIP, on “traditional infrastructure elements” in section 110(a)(1) and (2) rather than on modeling demonstrations for future attainment for potentially unclassifiable areas.3

    3 In EPA's final SO2 NAAQS preamble (75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010)) and subsequent draft guidance in March and September 2011, EPA had expressed its expectation that many areas would be initially designated as unclassifiable due to limitations in the scope of the ambient monitoring network and the short time available before which states could conduct modeling to support their designations recommendations due in June 2011. In order to address concerns about potential violations in these potentially unclassifiable areas, EPA initially recommended that states submit substantive attainment demonstration SIPs based on air quality modeling by June 2013 (under section 110(a)) that show how their unclassifiable areas would attain and maintain the NAAQS in the future. Implementation of the 2010 Primary 1-Hour SO 2 NAAQS, Draft White Paper for Discussion, May 2012 (for discussion purposes with Stakeholders at meetings in May and June 2012), available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html. However, EPA clearly stated in this 2012 Draft White Paper its clarified implementation position that it was no longer recommending such attainment demonstrations for unclassifiable areas for June 2013 infrastructure SIPs. Id. EPA had stated in the preamble to the NAAQS and in the prior 2011 draft guidance that EPA intended to develop and seek public comment on guidance for modeling and development of SIPs for sections 110 and 191 of the CAA. Section 191 of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs in accordance with section 172 for areas designated nonattainment with the SO2 NAAQS. After seeking such comment, EPA has now issued guidance for the nonattainment area SIPs due pursuant to sections 191 and 172. See Guidance for 1-Hour SO 2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions, Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors Regions 1-10, April 23, 2014. In September 2013, EPA had previously issued specific guidance relevant to infrastructure SIP submissions due for the NAAQS, including the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See Infrastructure SIP Guidance.

    Therefore, EPA continues to believe that the elements of section 110(a)(2) which address SIP revisions for nonattainment areas including measures and modeling demonstrating attainment are due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 under part D of title I. The CAA directs states to submit these 110(a)(2) elements for nonattainment areas on a separate schedule from the “structural requirements” of 110(a)(2) which are due within three years of adoption or revision of a NAAQS. The infrastructure SIP submission requirement does not move up the date for any required submission of a part D plan for areas designated nonattainment for the new NAAQS. Thus, elements relating to demonstrating attainment for areas not attaining the NAAQS are not necessary for states to include in the infrastructure SIP submission, and the CAA does not provide explicit requirements for demonstrating attainment for areas potentially designated as “unclassifiable” (or that have not yet been designated) regarding attainment with a particular NAAQS.

    As stated previously, EPA believes that the proper inquiry at this juncture is whether Ohio and Indiana have met the basic structural SIP requirements appropriate at the point in time EPA is acting upon the infrastructure submittal. Emissions limitations and other control measures needed to attain the NAAQS in areas designated nonattainment for that NAAQS are due on a different schedule from the section 110 infrastructure elements. States, like Ohio and Indiana, may reference pre-existing SIP emission limits or other rules contained in part D plans for previous NAAQS in an infrastructure SIP submission. For example, Ohio and Indiana submitted lists of existing emission reduction measures in the SIP that control emissions of SO2 as discussed above in response to a prior comment and discussed in detail in our proposed rulemakings. Ohio and Indiana's SIP revisions reflect several provisions that have the ability to reduce SO2. Although the Ohio and Indiana SIPs rely on measures and programs used to implement previous SO2 NAAQS, these provisions will provide benefits for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The identified Ohio and Indiana SIP measures help to reduce overall SO2 and are not limited to reducing SO2 levels to meet one specific NAAQS.

    Additionally, as discussed in EPA's proposed rules, Ohio and Indiana have the ability to revise their SIPs when necessary (e.g, in the event the Administrator finds their plans to be substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or otherwise meet all applicable CAA requirements) as required under element H of section 110(a)(2).

    EPA believes the requirements for emission reduction measures for an area designated nonattainment to come into attainment with the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS are in sections 172 and 192 of the CAA, and, therefore, the appropriate time for implementing requirements for necessary emission limitations for demonstrating attainment with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS is through the attainment planning process contemplated by those sections of the CAA. On August 5, 2013, EPA designated as nonattainment most areas in locations where existing monitoring data from 2009-2011 indicated violations of the 2010 SO2 standard. EPA designated Lake County and portions of Clermont, Morgan, Washington, and Jefferson Counties in Ohio and portions of Marion, Morgan, Daviess, Pike, and Vigo Counties in Indiana as nonattainment areas for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). In separate future actions, EPA will address the designations for all other areas for which the Agency has yet to issue designations. See, e.g., 79 FR 27446 (May 13, 2014) (proposing process and timetables by which state air agencies would characterize air quality around SO2 sources through ambient monitoring and/or air quality modeling techniques and submit such data to the EPA for future attainment status determinations under the 2010 SO2 NAAQS). For the areas designated nonattainment in August 2013 within Ohio and Indiana, attainment SIPs were due by April 4, 2015, and must contain demonstrations that the areas will attain as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018, pursuant to sections 172, 191 and 192, including a plan for enforceable measures to reach attainment of the NAAQS. EPA believes it is not appropriate to bypass the attainment planning process by imposing separate requirements outside the attainment planning process. Such actions would be disruptive and premature absent exceptional circumstances and would interfere with a state's planning process. See In the Matter of EME Homer City Generation LP and First Energy Generation Corp., Order on Petitions Numbers III-2012-06, III-2012-07, and III 2013-01 (July 30, 2014) (hereafter, Homer City/Mansfield Order) at 10-19 (finding Pennsylvania SIP did not require imposition of SO2 emission limits on sources independent of the part D attainment planning process contemplated by the CAA). EPA believes that the history of the CAA and intent of Congress for the CAA as described above demonstrate clearly that it is within the section 172 and general part D attainment planning process that Ohio and Indiana must include additional SO2 emission limits on sources in order to demonstrate future attainment, where needed.

    The Sierra Club's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its argument that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limits adequate to provide for timely attainment and maintenance of the standard is also not supported. As explained previously in response to the background comments, EPA notes this regulatory provision clearly on its face applies to plans specifically designed to attain the NAAQS and not to infrastructure SIPs which show the states have in place structural requirements necessary to implement the NAAQS. Therefore, EPA finds 40 CFR 51.112 inapplicable to its analysis of the Ohio and Indiana SO2 infrastructure SIPs.

    As noted in EPA's preamble for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, determining compliance with the SO2 NAAQS will likely be a source-driven analysis, and EPA has explored options to ensure that the SO2 designations process realistically accounts for anticipated SO2 reductions at sources that we expect will be achieved by current and pending national and regional rules. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). As mentioned previously above, EPA has proposed a process to address additional areas in states which may not be attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See 79 FR 27446 (May, 13, 2014, proposing process for gather further information from additional monitoring or modeling that may be used to inform future attainment status determinations). In addition, in response to lawsuits in district courts seeking to compel EPA's remaining designations of undesignated areas under the NAAQS, EPA has been placed under a court order to complete the designations process under section 107. However, because the purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is for more general planning purposes, EPA does not believe Ohio and Indiana were obligated during this infrastructure SIP planning process to account for controlled SO2 levels at individual sources. See Homer City/Mansfield Order at 10-19.

    Regarding the air dispersion modeling conducted by Sierra Club pursuant to AERMOD for the coal-fired EGUs, EPA is not at this stage prepared to opine on whether it demonstrates violations of the NAAQS, and does not find the modeling information relevant at this time for review of an infrastructure SIP. While EPA has extensively discussed the use of modeling for attainment demonstration purposes and for designations and other actions in which areas' air quality status is determined, EPA has recommended that such modeling was not needed for the SO2 infrastructure SIPs needed for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See April 12, 2012, letters to states regarding SO2 implementation and Implementation of the 2010 Primary 1-Hour SO 2 NAAQS, Draft White Paper for Discussion, May 2012, available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html. In contrast, EPA recently discussed modeling for designations in our May 14, 2014, proposal at 79 FR 27446 and for nonattainment planning in the April 23, 2014, Guidance for 1-Hour SO 2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions.

    In conclusion, EPA disagrees with Sierra Club's statements that EPA must disapprove Ohio and Indiana's infrastructure SIP submissions because they do not establish at this time specific enforceable SO2 emission limits either on coal-fired EGUs or other large SO2 sources in order to demonstrate attainment with the NAAQS.

    Comment 6: Sierra Club asserts that modeling is the appropriate tool for evaluating adequacy of infrastructure SIPs and ensuring attainment and maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. It refers to EPA's historic use of air dispersion modeling for attainment designations as well as “SIP revisions.”

    The Sierra Club cites to Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29,43 (1983) and NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1254 (D.C. Cir. 2009) for the general proposition that it would be arbitrary and capricious for an agency to ignore an aspect of an issue placed before it and for the statement that an agency must consider information presented during notice-and-comment rulemaking.

    The Sierra Club cites prior EPA statements that the Agency has used modeling for designations and attainment demonstrations, including statements in the 2010 SO2 NAAQS preamble, EPA's 2012 Draft White Paper for Discussion on Implementing the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and a 1994 SO2 Guideline Document, as modeling could better address the source-specific impacts of SO2 emissions and historic challenges from monitoring SO2 emissions. The Sierra Club discusses EPA's history of employing air dispersion modeling for increment compliance verifications in the permitting process for the PSD program and discusses different scenarios where the AERMOD model functions appropriately.

    The Sierra Club asserts that EPA's use of air dispersion modeling was upheld in GenOn REMA, LLC v. EPA, 722 F.3d 513 (3rd Cir. 2013) where an EGU challenged EPA's use of CAA section 126 to impose SO2 emission limits on a source due to cross-state impacts. The Sierra Club claims that the Third Circuit in GenOn REMA upheld EPA's actions after examining the record which included EPA's air dispersion modeling of the one source as well as other data.

    Finally, the Sierra Club agrees that Ohio and Indiana have the authority to use modeling for attainment demonstrations, but claims that Ohio and Indiana's proposed SO2 infrastructure SIPs lack emission limitations informed by air dispersion modeling and therefore fail to ensure Ohio and Indiana will achieve and maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Sierra Club claims Ohio and Indiana must require adequate one hour SO2 emission limits in the infrastructure SIP that show no exceedances of NAAQS when modeled.

    For Indiana, the Sierra Club specifically points out the need for modeling demonstrated by Duke Energy's Gibson Plant. It alleges that the air monitor is not showing the true picture of the occurring violations. The Sierra Club states that its model predicts no impact at the monitor, but violations nearby.

    Response 6: EPA agrees with the Sierra Club that air dispersion modeling, such as AERMOD, can be an important tool in the CAA section 107 designations process, in the attainment SIP process pursuant to sections 172 and 192, including supporting required attainment demonstrations, and in other actions in which areas' air quality status is determined. EPA agrees that prior EPA statements, EPA guidance, and case law support the use of air dispersion modeling in these processes, as well as in analyses of whether existing approved SIPs remain adequate to show attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS. However, EPA disagrees with the Sierra Club that EPA must disapprove Ohio's and Indiana's SO2 infrastructure SIPs for their alleged failure to include source-specific SO2 emission limits that show no exceedances of the NAAQS when modeled, since this is not an action in which air quality status is being determined or for which there is a duty for the States to demonstrate future attainment of the NAAQS in areas that may be violating it.

    As discussed previously and in the Infrastructure SIP Guidance, EPA believes the conceptual purpose of an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure that the air agency's SIP contains the necessary structural requirements for the new or revised NAAQS and that the infrastructure SIP submission process provides an opportunity to review the basic structural requirements of the air agency's air quality management program in light of the new or revised NAAQS. See Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p. 2. EPA believes the attainment planning process detailed in part D of the CAA, including attainment SIPs required by sections 172 and 192 for areas not attaining the NAAQS, is the appropriate place for the state to evaluate measures needed to bring nonattainment areas into attainment with a NAAQS and to impose additional emission limitations such as SO2 emission limits on specific sources as needed to achieve such future attainment. While EPA had initially suggested in the final 2010 SO2 NAAQS preamble (75 FR 35520) and subsequent draft guidance in March and September 2011 that EPA recommended states submit substantive attainment demonstration SIPs based on air quality modeling in section 110(a) SIPs due in June 2013 to show how areas expected to be designated as unclassifiable would attain and maintain the NAAQS, these initial statements in the preamble and 2011 draft guidance were based on EPA's initial expectation that most areas would by June 2012 be initially designated as unclassifiable due to limitations in the scope of the ambient monitoring network and the short time available before which states could conduct modeling to support designations recommendations in 2011. However, after receiving comments from the states regarding these initial statements and the timeline for implementing the NAAQS, EPA subsequently stated in the April 12, 2012, letters to the states and in the May 2012 Implementation of the 2010 Primary 1-Hour SO 2 NAAQS, Draft White Paper for Discussion that EPA was clarifying its implementation position and that EPA was no longer recommending such attainment demonstrations supported by air dispersion modeling for unclassifiable areas (which had not yet been designated) for June 2013 infrastructure SIPs. EPA reaffirmed this position that EPA did not expect attainment demonstrations for areas not designated nonattainment for infrastructure SIPs in the February 6, 2013, memorandum, “Next Steps for Area Designations and Implementation of the Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard.” 4 As previously mentioned, EPA had stated in the preamble to the NAAQS and in the prior 2011 draft guidance that EPA intended to develop and seek public comment on guidance for modeling and development of SIPs for sections 110, 172 and 191-192 of the CAA. After receiving such further comment, EPA has now issued guidance for the nonattainment area SIPs due pursuant to sections 191-192 and 172 and proposed a process for further designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, which could include use of air dispersion modeling. See April 23, 2014, Guidance for 1-Hour SO 2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions and 79 FR 27446 (proposing process and timetables for additional gathering of information to support future attainment status determinations informed through ambient monitoring and/or air quality modeling). While the EPA guidance for attainment SIPs and the proposed process for additional information gathering discusses use of air dispersion modeling, EPA's 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance did not require use of air dispersion modeling to inform emission limitations for section 110(a)(2)(A) to ensure no exceedances of the NAAQS when sources are modeled. Therefore, as discussed previously, EPA believes the Ohio and Indiana SO2 infrastructure SIP submittals contains the structural requirements to address elements in section 110(a)(2) as discussed in detail in our proposed approval and in our response to a prior comment. EPA believes infrastructure SIPs are general planning SIPs to ensure that a state has adequate resources and authority to implement a NAAQS. Infrastructure SIP submissions are not intended to act or fulfill the obligations of a detailed attainment and/or maintenance plan for each individual area of the state that is not attaining the NAAQS. While infrastructure SIPs must address modeling authorities in general for section 110(a)(2)(K), EPA believes 110(a)(2)(K) requires infrastructure SIPs to provide the state's authority for air quality modeling and for submission of modeling data to EPA, not specific air dispersion modeling for large stationary sources of pollutants such as SO2 in a SO2 infrastructure SIP. In the proposed rules for this action, EPA provided a detailed explanation of Ohio's and Indiana's abilities and authorities to conduct air quality modeling when required and their authority to submit modeling data to the EPA.

    4 The February 6, 2013 “Next Steps for Area Designations and Implementation of the Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” one of the April 12, 2012 state letters, and the May 2012 Draft White Paper are available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html.

    EPA finds Sierra Club's discussion of case law and guidance to be irrelevant to our analysis here of the Ohio and Indiana infrastructure SIPs, as this SIP for section 110(a) is not an attainment SIP required to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS pursuant to section 172. In addition, Sierra Club's comments relating to EPA's use of AERMOD or modeling in general in designations pursuant to section 107 are likewise irrelevant as EPA's present approval of Ohio's and Indiana's infrastructure SIPs are unrelated to the section 107 designations process. Nor is our action on this infrastructure SIP related to any new source review (NSR) or PSD permit program issue. As outlined in the August 23, 2010, clarification memo, “Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hour SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard” (U.S. EPA, 2010a), AERMOD is the preferred model for single source modeling to address the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as part of the NSR/PSD permit programs. Therefore, as attainment SIPs, designations, and NSR/PSD actions are outside the scope of a required infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for section 110(a), EPA provides no further response to the Commenter's discussion of air dispersion modeling for these applications. If Sierra Club resubmits its air dispersion modeling for the Ohio and Indiana EGUs, or updated modeling information in the appropriate context where an evaluation of areas' air quality status is being conducted, including the Gibson Plant referenced in this comment, EPA will address the resubmitted modeling or updated modeling in the appropriate future context when an analysis of whether Ohio and Indiana's emissions limits are adequate to show attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS is warranted.

    The Sierra Club correctly noted that the Third Circuit upheld EPA's section 126 Order imposing SO2 emissions limitations on an EGU pursuant to CAA section 126. GenOn REMA, LLC v. EPA, 722 F.3d 513. Pursuant to section 126, any state or political subdivision may petition EPA for a finding that any major source or group of stationary sources emits or would emit any air pollutant in violation of the prohibition of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which relates to significant contributions to nonattainment or maintenance in another state. The Third Circuit upheld EPA's authority under section 126 and found EPA's actions neither arbitrary nor capricious after reviewing EPA's supporting docket which included air dispersion modeling as well as ambient air monitoring data showing violations of the NAAQS. The Sierra Club appears to have cited this matter to demonstrate again EPA's use of modeling for certain aspects of the CAA. EPA agrees with the Sierra Club regarding the appropriate role air dispersion modeling has for designations, attainment SIPs, and demonstrating significant contributions to interstate transport. However, EPA's approval of Ohio and Indiana's infrastructure SIPs is based on our determination that Ohio and Indiana have the required structural requirements pursuant to section 110(a)(2) in accordance with our explanation of the intent for infrastructure SIPs as discussed in the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance. Therefore, while air dispersion modeling may be appropriate for consideration in certain circumstances, EPA does not find air dispersion modeling demonstrating no exceedances of the NAAQS to be a required element before approval of infrastructure SIPs for section 110(a) or specifically for 110(a)(2)(A). Thus, EPA disagrees with the Sierra Club that EPA must require additional emission limitations in the Ohio and Indiana SO2 infrastructure SIPs informed by air dispersion modeling and demonstrating attainment and maintenance of the 2010 NAAQS.

    In its comments, Sierra Club relies on Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n and NRDC v. EPA to support its comments that EPA must now consider the Sierra Club's modeling data based on administrative law principles regarding consideration of comments provided during a rulemaking process. EPA notes that it has considered the modeling submitted by the Sierra Club, as well as all of its submitted comments, to the extent that they are germane to the action being undertaken here. This action is not, in addition to being the traditional action on infrastructure SIPs described above, a response to a separate administrative petition to determine the air quality status of Ohio and Indiana generally. Therefore, the information Sierra Club has submitted regarding such a potential determination is not germane to this action. As discussed in detail in the Responses above, EPA does not believe the infrastructure SIPs required by section 110(a) must contain emission limits demonstrating future attainment with a NAAQS. Part D of the CAA contains numerous requirements for the NAAQS attainment planning process including requirements for attainment demonstrations in section 172 supported by appropriate modeling. As also discussed previously, section 107 supports EPA's use of modeling in the designations process. In Catawba, the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA's consideration of data or factors for designations other than ambient monitoring. EPA does not believe state infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limitations informed by air dispersion modeling demonstrating current future NAAQS attainment in order to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A). Thus, EPA has not evaluated the persuasiveness of the Commenter's submitted modeling for that purpose, and finds that it is not relevant to the approvability of Ohio's and Indiana's proposed infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    For the reasons discussed in our February 27, 2015, proposed rulemaking and in the above responses to public comments, EPA is taking final action to approve Indiana's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS as proposed.

    For the reasons discussed in our July 25, 2014, proposed rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve Ohio's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as proposed. In the July 25, 2014, rulemaking, EPA also proposed approval for Ohio's 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, and 2010 NO2 infrastructure submittals. Those approvals have been finalized in separate rulemakings (see 79 FR 60075, October 6, 2014, and 79 FR 62019, October 16, 2014). In today's rulemaking, we are taking final action on only the infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for Ohio. Our final actions by element of section 110(a)(2) and NAAQS, are contained in the table below.5

    5 As stated previously, EPA will take later, separate action on portions of Ohio and Indiana's SO2 infrastructure SIP submittal including the portions of the SIP submittal addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and the visibility portion of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    Element 2010 NO2 NAAQS for
  • Indiana
  • 2010 SO2 NAAQS for
  • Indiana
  • 2010 SO2 NAAQS for
  • Ohio
  • (A): Emission limits and other control measures A A A (B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system A A A (C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures A A A (C)2: PSD A A A (D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS A NA NA (D)2: PSD A A A (D)3: Visibility Protection NA NA NA (D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement A A A (D)5: International Pollution Abatement A A A (E)1: Adequate resources A A A (E)2: State boards A A A (F): Stationary source monitoring system A A A (G): Emergency power A A A (H): Future SIP revisions A A A (I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D NA NA NA (J)1: Consultation with government officials A A A (J)2: Public notification A A A (J)3: PSD A A A (J)4: Visibility protection (Regional Haze) NA NA NA (K): Air quality modeling and data A A A (L): Permitting fees A A A (M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities A A A

    In the table above, the key is as follows:

    A Approve. a Approved in a previous Rulemaking. NA No Action/Separate Rulemaking. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

    • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 13, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

    PART 52— APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding entries in alphabetical order for “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS” and “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS” to read as follows:
    § 52.770 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions Title Indiana date EPA Approval Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 1/15/2013 8/14/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II) except visibility, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) except visibility, (K), (L), and (M). Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 5/22/2013 8/14/2015, [insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) except visibility, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) except visibility, (K), (L), and (M). *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    3. Section 52.1891 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 52.1891 Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements.

    (h) Approval—In a June 7, 2013, submittal, Ohio certified that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. We are not finalizing action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 or visibility portions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J).

    [FR Doc. 2015-20020 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0496; FRL-9931-06] Fludioxonil; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of fludioxonil in or on carrots, the stone fruit group 12-12, and the rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax seed. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested the tolerances for carrots and the stone fruit group 12-12, and Syngenta Crop Protection requested the tolerance for the rapeseed subgroup 20A under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective August 14, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 13, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0496, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0496 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 13, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0496, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75107) (FRL-9918-90), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4E8272) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide fludioxonil [4-(2,2-difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile] in or on the raw agricultural commodity carrot at 7.0 ppm, and by changing the existing entry for “fruit, stone, group 12 at 5.0 ppm” to “fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 5.0 ppm.” That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.

    In the Federal Register of October 24, 2014 (79 FR 63594) (FRL-9916-03), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4F8277) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 410 Swing Rd., Greensboro, NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide fludioxonil in or on the rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax seed at 0.01 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.

    Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for fludioxonil including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with fludioxonil follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    In all species tested, the effects in the fludioxonil database are indicative of toxicity to the liver and kidney. The hematopoietic system was also a target in dogs. There were also decreased body weights and clinical signs throughout the database. Fludioxonil was non-toxic through the dermal route, and there was no evidence of immunotoxicity when tested up to and including the limit dose. Fludioxonil was not mutagenic in the tests for gene mutations.

    In a rat developmental toxicity study, fludioxonil caused an increase in fetal incidence and litter incidence of dilated renal pelvis at the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). These effects are known to occur spontaneously in the rat, in addition to being transient and reversible which is consistent with the fludioxonil hazard database (not seen in offspring in the 2-generation reproductive study). Under current policy, the agency considers classification of these effects as treatment-related but conservative and not indicative of increased fetal susceptibility. Maternal toxicity occurred at the same dose and manifested as body weight decrements. In the 2-generation reproduction study, parental and offspring effects occurred at the same dose and consisted of decreased body weights in parental and offspring animals, as well as increased clinical signs in parental animals.

    There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in male or female CD-1 mice and male Sprague-Dawley rats following dietary administration at doses that were adequate for assessing the carcinogenic potential of fludioxonil. In female Sprague-Dawley rats, there was a statistically significant increase in tumor incidence only when hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas were combined (not for individual tumor types). The pairwise increase for combined tumors was significant at p=0.03, which is not a strong indication of a positive effect. Further, statistical significance was only found when liver adenomas were combined with liver carcinomas. Finally, the increase in these tumors was within, but at the high-end, of the historical controls. Based on these findings and in accordance with the Agency's 1986 “Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment,” fludioxonil was classified as a Group D carcinogen; therefore, there is no need for a quantitative cancer risk assessment.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by fludioxonil as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Fludioxonil. Section 3 Registration for Use on Carrots, Stone Fruit, Group 12-12, and Rapeseed, Subgroup 20A. Human Health Risk Assessment” at page 28 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0496.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fludioxonil used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit. Since the last assessment in 2012, (August 15, 2012) (77 FR 48907) (FRL-9357-5), the Agency has reevaluated the toxicological endpoints. Based upon current policy, it was determined that an acute dietary assessment was no longer necessary for fludioxonil. This decision was based upon the following weight of evidence: (1) After re-evaluation of the hazard database, it was determined that there were no effects that could be attributed to single dose and (2) the fetal effects in the developmental rat study occurred only at the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). Additionally, though the same study is being used to assess chronic dietary risk, the NOAEL and LOAEL have been reclassified. Further, the remaining endpoints for short-term incidental oral toxicity and short-term inhalation toxicity have changed as well.

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Fludioxonil for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and
  • uncertainty/safety factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for risk
  • assessment
  • Study and toxicological effects
    Acute dietary (General population including infants and children) There were no appropriate toxicological effects attributable to a single exposure (dose) observed in available oral toxicity studies, including maternal toxicity in the developmental toxicity studies. Therefore, a dose and endpoint were not identified for this risk assessment. Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 33.1 mg/kg/day UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.33 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.33 mg/kg/day
  • Chronic toxicity in dogs—
  • LOAEL = 297.8 mg/kg/day based upon decreased absolute body weights, increased platelets and fibrin in both sexes, cholesterol in males, and increased alkaline phosphatase release in both sexes. Enlarged livers in two females were observed along with biliary epithelial cell proliferation in one female.
  • Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 days) NOAEL= 50 mg/kg/day UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 Subchronic toxicity in dogs—
  • LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based upon decreased absolute body weights in both sexes, diarrhea, hematological alterations (increased platelets and fibrin, decreased red cells, hemoglobin, and packed cell volume), clinical chemistry alterations (increased alpha-1 and alpha-2 globulin in females), increased liver weights in both sexes, increased testes and ovary weights, and an increased severity (but not incidence) of bile duct proliferation.
  • Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 days) Oral study NOAEL= 50 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate = 100%)
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 Subchronic toxicity in dogs—
  • LOAEL = 250 mg/kg/day based upon decreased absolute body weights in both sexes, diarrhea, hematological alterations (increased platelets and fibrin, decreased red cells, hemoglobin, and packed cell volume), clinical chemistry alterations (increased alpha-1 and alpha-2 globulin in females), increased liver weights in both sexes, increased testes and ovary weights, and an increased severity (but not incidence) of bile duct proliferation.
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classified as a Group D carcinogen; no cancer assessment is necessary.  FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to fludioxonil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing fludioxonil tolerances in 40 CFR 180.516. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fludioxonil in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for fludioxonil; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, an unrefined chronic dietary exposure and risk assessment was performed assuming tolerance-level residues, 100 percent crop treated (PCT) estimates, and DEEM (ver. 7.81) default processing factors.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has classified fludioxonil as a group D carcinogen. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for fludioxonil. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for fludioxonil in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of fludioxonil. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of fludioxonil for chronic exposures are estimated to be 38.5 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.2 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 38.5 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Fludioxonil is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: parks, golf courses, athletic fields, residential lawns, ornamentals, and greenhouses. To assess residential handler exposure, the Agency used the short-term inhalation exposure to adults from mixing/loading/applying a wettable powder in water-soluble packaging with hose end sprayer (both for turf and gardens). To assess post-application exposure, the Agency used short-term incidental oral exposures (hand-to-mouth) to children 1<2 years old from exposure to outdoor treated turf. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA has not found fludioxonil to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and fludioxonil does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that fludioxonil does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility following in utero exposure to rats and rabbits or following pre-/postnatal exposure. In a rat developmental toxicity study, fludioxonil caused an increase in fetal incidence and litter incidence of dilated renal pelvis at the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). Maternal toxicity occurred at the same dose and manifested as body weight decrements. Fludioxonil was not developmentally toxic in rabbits. In the 2-generation reproduction study, parental and offspring effects occurred at the same dose and consisted of decreased body weights in parental and offspring animals, as well as increased clinical signs in parental animals.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for fludioxonil is complete.

    ii. The only potential indicator of neurotoxicity for fludioxonil was convulsions in mice following handling in the mouse carcinogenicity study at the mid- and high-doses. The concern is low however since there was no supportive neuropathology, the effect was not seen at similar doses in a second mouse carcinogenicity study, there were no other signs of potential neurotoxicity observed in the database, and selected endpoints are protective of the effect seen in mice. Therefore, there is no residual uncertainty concerning neurotoxicity and no need to retain the FQPA 10X safety factor.

    iii. There is no evidence that fludioxonil results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to fludioxonil in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by fludioxonil.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, fludioxonil is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to fludioxonil from food and water will utilize 71% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of fludioxonil is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Fludioxonil is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to fludioxonil.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 81,000 for adults and 4,800 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for fludioxonil is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, fludioxonil is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for fludioxonil.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the discussion contained in Unit III.A., fludioxonil is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to fludioxonil residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate high-performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet (HPLC/UV) methods (Methods AG-597 and AG-597B) are available for enforcing tolerances for fludioxonil on plant commodities. An adequate liquid chromatography, tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method (Analytical Method GRM025.03A) is available for enforcing tolerances for residues of fludioxonil in or on livestock commodities.

    The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has established MRLs for fludioxonil in or on multiple stone fruit commodities (peaches, apricots, etc.) at 5.0 ppm. These MRLs are the same as the tolerances established for fludioxonil in the United States.

    The Codex has established an MRL for fludioxonil in or on carrot roots at 0.7 ppm. This MRL is different than the tolerance established for fludioxonil in the United States because it is based on a foliar use, whereas the U.S. use is based on a post-harvest use. Harmonization with the Codex MRL is likely to result in tolerance exceedances when fludioxonil is applied to carrots in accordance with the label.

    The Codex has established an MRL for fludioxonil in or on rape seed at 0.02 ppm. This MRL is different than the 0.01 ppm tolerance established for fludioxonil on the rapeseed subgroup 20A in the U.S., which is aligned with the existing Canadian MRL on rapeseed. In their petition, Syngenta requested to remain aligned with Canada at 0.01 ppm for rapeseed in order to prevent NAFTA trade barriers.

    C. Response to Comments

    Several comments were received in response to the Notice of Filing regarding adverse impacts to bees but did not reference any specific active ingredient. The commenters by and large stated this action should be denied due to toxicity to bees and that all use of chemicals should be stopped. The comments primarily appear directed to the registration of the pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). One comment referenced the establishment of a tolerance for an unnamed Syngenta pesticide, so to the extent that comment is directed at the present tolerance action, the Agency understands the commenters' concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. The comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; no contentions have been made that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework. As to bees the EPA considers impacts to the environment and non-target species under the authority of the (FIFRA).

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fludioxonil, (4-(2,2- difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1 H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile), in or on carrots at 7.0 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 5.0 ppm; and the rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax seed at 0.01 ppm. In addition, upon establishment of these tolerances, the existing tolerance for rapeseed, seed is removed as unnecessary since it is part of the rapeseed subgroup 20A.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 6, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.516: a. Remove the entry in the table in paragraph (a) for “Rapeseed, seed”. b. Add alphabetically the entries for “Carrots” and “Rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax seed” to the table in paragraph (a). c. Revise the entry for “Fruit, stone, group 12” to read “Fruit, stone, group 12-12” in the table in paragraph (a).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 180.516 Fludioxonil; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    *     Carrots 7.0 *    *    *    *    *     Fruit, stone, group 12-12 5.0 *    *    *    *    *     Rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax seed 0.01 *    *    *    *    *    
    [FR Doc. 2015-20019 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0793; FRL-9930-20] Acetic Acid; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation amends the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of acetic acid (CAS Reg. No. 64-19-7) when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations used on dairy and food-processing equipment and utensils, to allow for a limitation of 1200 ppm. Technology Sciences Group, Inc. on behalf of West Agro, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an amendment to the existing exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of acetic acid.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective August 14, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 13, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0793, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

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

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0793 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 13, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0793, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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

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

    II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11611) (FRL-9922-68), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition inert ingredient (IN-10766) by Technology Sciences Group, Inc. (1150 18th Street, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036), on behalf of West Agro, Inc. (11100 Congress Ave., Kansas City, MO 64153). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.940(b) and (c) be amended by modifying an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of acetic acid (CAS Reg No. 64-19-7) when used as an inert ingredient to promote the active ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to dairy-processing equipment, food-processing equipment, and utensils to increase the use limitation from 686 parts per million (ppm) to 1,200 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Technology Sciences Group, Inc. on behalf of West Agro, Inc., the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received on the notice of filing.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for acetic acid including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with acetic acid follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by acetic acid as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

    Acetic acid is of low acute dermal and inhalation toxicity in rats. It causes dermal irritation in mice and is corrosive in rabbits. It was also irritating in the eyes of rabbits. Although, reduced body weight was observed at 390 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day) in a 90-day oral toxicity study in the rat, the reduction in weight gain was likely attributed to reduced appetite and food consumption observed in the study. Therefore, this is not considered an adverse effect. Fetal susceptibility was not observed in developmental studies in rats, mice and rabbits. It is not genotoxic, mutagenic, carcinogenic or neurotoxic. Although, increased spleen weight and increased levels of iron stored in the spleen were observed in a toxicity study via inhalation in rats, these effects are not considered an immunotoxic response, but are due to the destruction of red blood cells; therefore, there is no concern for potential immunotoxicity.

    Acetic acid undergoes dissociation to the acetate anion and the H+ cations in aqueous media at pHs commonly found in the environment. Also, it is a naturally-occurring substance in plants and animals. In aerobic metabolism, acetic acid (as acetate) is a metabolite that combines with Co-enzyme A to form acetyl Co-A which subsequently enters into the Citric Acid Cycle, a common metabolic pathway in which food molecules are broken down to form energy. A major function of the Citric Acid Cycle is the oxidation of acetate. In animals, acetate is obtained from the breakdown of glucose molecules.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by acetic acid as well as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document “Acetic Acid; Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Formulations” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0793.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    Based on the widespread presence of acetic acid in human foods, and the fact that acetic acid is a normal metabolite in humans and animals and its status as a substance that is considered Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the Food and Drug Administration, toxicological endpoints of concern relevant to human exposures have not been identified for acetic acid. Thus, due to its low potential hazard and lack of hazard endpoint, the Agency has determined that a quantitative risk assessment using safety factors applied to a point of departure protective of an identified hazard endpoint is not appropriate. Instead, the Agency's assessment of the risk from acetic acid is qualitative.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses and drinking water. In evaluating dietary exposure to acetic acid, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from acetic acid in food as follows:

    Acetic acid is currently used as a biochemical pesticide post-harvest on grains, hays for animal feed, and as a herbicide. Under this exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, residues of this chemical also may be found on foods that come in contact with treated dairy and food-processing equipment and utensils. However, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted since an endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.

    2. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

    Acetic acid may be used in pesticide products and nonpesticide products that may be used around the home. Since an endpoint for risk assessment was not identified, a quantitative residential exposure assessment for acetic acid was not conducted.

    3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA has not found acetic acid to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and acetic acid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that acetic acid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    As part of its qualitative assessment, the Agency did not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children. Based on an assessment of acetic acid and its chemical properties, EPA has concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population, including infants and children.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Because no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified, EPA concludes that aggregate exposure to residues of acetic acid will not pose a risk to the U.S. population, including infants and children, and that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to acetic acid residues.

    V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of acetic acid that may be used in pesticide formulations.

    The limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any antimicrobial pesticide formulation used on dairy processing equipment or food-processing equipment and utensils for sale or distribution containing acetic acid at ready for use end-use concentrations exceeding 1,200 parts per million.

    VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for acetic acid when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations used on dairy-processing equipment, food-processing equipment, and utensils under 40 CFR 180.940(b) and (c) are amended by an increase in the use limitation from 686 ppm to 1,200 ppm.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action amends exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 30, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.940(b) and (c), revise the entry for “Acetic acid” to read as follows:
    § 180.940 Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact surface sanitizing solutions).

    (b) * * *

    Pesticide chemical CAS Reg. No. Limits Acetic acid 64-19-7 When ready for use, the end-use concentration is not to exceed 1200 ppm. *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (c) * * *

    Pesticide chemical CAS Reg. No. Limits Acetic acid 64-19-7 When ready for use, the end-use concentration is not to exceed 1,200 ppm. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-20001 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0804; FRL-9931-30] Hexythiazox; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of hexythiazox in or on wheat, forage; wheat, hay; wheat, grain; and wheat, straw. Gowan Company requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective August 14, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 13, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0804, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0804 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 13, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0804, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 11, 2015 (80 FR 7559) (FRL-9921-94), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4F8315) by Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.448 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide hexythiazox and its metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-thiazolidine moiety, in or on wheat, forage at 6.0 parts per million (ppm); wheat, hay at 30 ppm; wheat, grain at 0.02; and wheat, straw at 8.0 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Gowan Company, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for hexythiazox including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with hexythiazox follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Hexythiazox has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. It produces mild eye irritation, is not a dermal irritant, and is negative for dermal sensitization. Hexythiazox is associated with toxicity of the liver and adrenals following subchronic and chronic exposure to dogs, rats and mice, with the dog being the most sensitive species. The prenatal developmental studies in rabbits and rats and the 2-generation reproduction study in rats showed no indication of increased susceptibility to in utero or postnatal exposure to hexythiazox. Reproductive toxicity was not observed. There is no concern for immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity following exposure to hexythiazox. The toxicology database for hexythiazox does not show any evidence of treatment-related effects on the immune system. Hexythiazox is classified as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans”; however, the evidence as a whole is not strong enough to warrant a quantitative estimation of human cancer risk. Since the effects seen in the study that serves as the basis for the chronic RfD occurred at doses substantially below the lowest dose that induced tumors, the chronic RfD is considered protective of all chronic effects including potential carcinogenicity.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by hexythiazox as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document: Hexythiazox. Human Health Risk Assessment to Support New Uses on Wheat and Pepper/Eggplant Subgroup 8-10B in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0804.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for hexythiazox used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Hexythiazox for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/Scenario Point of departure and
  • uncertainty/Safety factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for risk
  • assessment
  • Study and toxicological effects
    Acute dietary (All populations) No risk is expected from this exposure scenario as no hazard was identified in any toxicity study for this duration of exposure. Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 2.5 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.025 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.025
  • One-Year Toxicity Feeding Study—Dog.
  • LOAEL = 12.5 mg/kg/day based on increased absolute and relative adrenal weights and associated adrenal histopathology.
  • Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 days ) and intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 2-Generation Reproduction Study—Rat.
  • LOAEL = 180 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup body weight during lactation and delayed hair growth and/or eye opening, and decreased parental body-weight gain and increased absolute and relative liver, kidney, and adrenal weights.
  • Co-Critical
  • 13-Week Oral Toxicity Study—Rat.
  • NOAEL = 5.5 mg/kg/day.
  • LOAEL = 38 mg/kg/day, based on increased absolute and relative liver weights in both sexes, increased relative ovarian and kidney weights, and fatty degeneration of the adrenal zona fasciculata.
  • @397.5/257.6 mg/kg/day, decreased body-weight gain in females, slight swelling of hepatocytes in central zone (both sexes), increased incidence of glomerulonephrosis in males, increased adrenal weights.
  • Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: “Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans”. Insufficient evidence to warrant a quantitative estimation of human risk using a cancer slope factor based on the common liver tumors (benign and malignant) observed only in high dose female mice, and benign mammary gland tumors of no biological significance, observed only in high dose male rats in the absence of mutagenic concerns. The chronic RfD is protective of all chronic effects including potential carcinogenicity of hexythiazox. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to hexythiazox, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing hexythiazox tolerances in 40 CFR 180.448. EPA assessed dietary exposures from hexythiazox in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for hexythiazox; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance level residues, assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT), and incorporated Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) default processing factors when processing data were not available.

    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data. Cancer risk is quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If sufficient information on the carcinogenic mode of action is available, a threshold or nonlinear approach is used and a cancer RfD is calculated based on an earlier noncancer key event. If carcinogenic mode of action data are not available, or if the mode of action data determines a mutagenic mode of action, a default linear cancer slope factor approach is utilized. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk to hexythiazox. Cancer risk was assessed using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for hexythiazox. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for hexythiazox in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of hexythiazox. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of hexythiazox for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 4.3 ppb for surface water. Since groundwater residues are not expected to exceed surface water residues, surface water residues were used in the dietary risk assessment. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Hexythiazox is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: ornamental plantings, turf, and fruit and nut trees in residential settings. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Residential handler exposures are expected to be short-term (1 to 30 days) via either the dermal or inhalation routes of exposures. Since a quantitative dermal risk assessment is not needed for hexythiazox, handler MOEs were calculated for the inhalation route of exposure only. Both adults and children may be exposed to hexythiazox residues from contact with treated lawns or treated residential plants. Post application exposures are expected to be short-term (1 to 30 days) and intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) in duration. Adult postapplication exposures were not assessed since no quantitative dermal risk assessment is needed for hexythiazox and inhalation exposures are typically negligible in outdoor settings. The exposure assessment for children included incidental oral exposure resulting from transfer of residues from the hands or objects to the mouth, and from incidental ingestion of soil. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/residential-exposure-sop.html.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA has not found hexythiazox to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and hexythiazox does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that hexythiazox does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal toxicology data base indicates no increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to in utero and/or postnatal exposure to hexythiazox.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for hexythiazox is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that hexythiazox is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence that hexythiazox results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to hexythiazox in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by hexythiazox.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, hexythiazox is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to hexythiazox from food and water will utilize 81% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years of age, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of hexythiazox is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Hexythiazox is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to hexythiazox.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1291 for children and 8626 for adults. Because EPA's level of concern for hexythiazox is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Hexythiazox is currently registered for uses that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with intermediate-term residential exposures to hexythiazox.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1474 for children and 8808 for adults. Because EPA's level of concern for hexythiazox is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit III. C.1.iii., EPA concluded that regulation based on the chronic reference dose will be protective for both chronic and carcinogenic risks. As noted in this unit there are no chronic risks of concern.

    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to hexythiazox residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid chromatography method with UV detection (HPLC/UV)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. This method is listed in the U.S. EPA Index of Residue Analytical Methods under hexythiazox as method AMR-985-87.

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has not established a MRL for hexythiazox in/on wheat, therefore, there are no harmonization issues associated with this action.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of hexythiazox and its metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-thiazolidine moiety, as petitioned.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 6, 2015. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.448, add alphabetically the following commodities to the table in paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 180.448 Hexythiazox; tolerances for residues.

    (c) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Wheat, forage (EPA Region 11 only) 6.0 Wheat, hay (EPA Region 11 only) 30 Wheat, grain (EPA Region 11 only) 0.02 Wheat, straw (EPA Region 11 only) 8.0
    [FR Doc. 2015-20012 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010; FRL-9932-37-Region 4] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion for the Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) Superfund Site (Site), located in Saraland, Mobile County, Alabama, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published by the EPA with the concurrence of the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), because the EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    This direct final deletion is effective September 28, 2015 unless the EPA receives adverse comments by September 14, 2015. If adverse comments are received, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No., EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010, by one of the following methods:

    www.regulations.gov Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: (404) 562-8896, Attention: Shelby Johnston.

    Mail: Shelby Johnston, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: U.S. EPA Record Center, attn: Ms. Tina Terrell, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, Phone: (404) 562-8835, Hours 8 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday through Friday by appointment only; or, Saraland Public Library, 111 Saraland Loop, Saraland, AL 36571, Phone: 251-675-2879, Hours 10 a.m.-6 p.m., Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday and 12 p.m.-8 p.m., Tuesday and Thursday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shelby Johnston, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, 404-562-8287, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Site Deletion V. Deletion Action I. Introduction

    The EPA Region 4 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of the Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) Superfund Site from the NPL. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the NCP, which the EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the CERCLA of 1980, as amended. The EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in the Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

    Section II of this document explains the criteria to delete sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses the EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

    II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

    i. responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

    III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

    (1) The EPA consulted with the State of Alabama prior to developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete co-published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register.

    (2) The EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their publication today, and the state, through ADEM, has concurred on the deletion of the site from the NPL.

    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, The Mobile Press Register. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.

    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion action, the EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received.

    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter the EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist the EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides the EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:

    Site Background and History

    Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) Superfund Site, (EPA ID: ALD980844385) is located at 527 U.S. Highway 43, Saraland, Mobile County, Alabama. The Site is 5.1 acres and bounded to the east by U.S. Highway 43 and a skating rink. To the north it is bounded by a United Gas Pipe Line easement and a mobile home community, to the south by a residential development, and to the west by an undeveloped lot. The Site was the former location of the Saraland Apartment Complex (Apartments) that has since been demolished to allow for the complete remediation of the Site. From 1961 to 1971, Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Redwing), a trucking company, owned and operated the Site as a terminal for cleaning, repairing and parking its fleet of trucks. The company transported a variety of substances, including asphalt, diesel fuel, chemicals and pesticides from local plants. Redwing discharged untreated hazardous substances to the ground during the cleaning of tanker trucks, creating a tar-like sludge and contaminating Site soils. The tar-like sludge was composed predominately of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds together with lesser amounts of pesticides, herbicides and volatile organic compounds. These operations resulted in contamination of soils, groundwater and sediment.

    In 1973, Saraland Apartments Ltd. purchased the Site and built a U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) subsidized apartment complex on the Site. During construction, the sludge and contaminated soils were covered with up to 5 feet of clean soil. When completed, the complex consisted of 60 apartment units located in 12 buildings, and at one time housed approximately 160 residents, including 80 to 90 preschool-age or elementary school-age children.

    In 1984, ADEM investigated apartment residents' complaints about the tar-like sludge seeping to the surface at numerous locations at the Site. In 1985, under Superfund removal authority, the EPA conducted initial studies in which high concentrations of 1, 2, 4-trichlorobenzene and naphthalene were detected in the soil and in leachate coming from the sludge. On July 8, 1985, the EPA and Redwing entered into a removal Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) that required Redwing to, among other things, conduct a limited sludge and contaminated soil removal action. Redwing was required to periodically inspect the Site and remove any visible sludge on the surface. The Site was proposed for the NPL on June 24, 1988 (53 FR 23988) and finalized on the NPL February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6154) due to the potential for consumption of contaminated groundwater.

    Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    On July 2, 1990, the EPA and Redwing entered into an AOC wherein Redwing agreed to conduct the Site RI/FS. Redwing, under the EPA's oversight, began field activities for the first phase of the remedial investigation in January 1991. The RI/FS was completed in July of 1992. During the investigation, 39 soil borings were collected with a total of 123 separate soil samples being analyzed. The substances found most frequently at concentrations above risk-based cleanup levels fall into three major categories: pesticides and herbicides; volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). These substances were found in soils, ditch sediments, and groundwater across the Site. The highest levels of contamination were detected in the southern and eastern portions (the location of the former containment levee used by Redwing) and across areas of former terminal operations. Inorganic substances, which may occur in nature at significant levels, were also detected in soils, sludge, and groundwater. During this investigation, the EPA determined that the contaminants at the Site presented an unacceptable risk to human health by future groundwater consumption.

    Selected Remedy

    The EPA's Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on December 15, 1992, and the State of Alabama concurred with the selected remedy. The selected alternative included the following:

    • Excavation of sludge, sediments, and contaminated soils.

    • Off-site treatment/disposal of contaminated soils, sediments, and sludge at an approved disposal facility as determined appropriate by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) criteria and the waste sampling results from Toxicity Characterization Leaching Procedure (TCLP) testing.

    • Regrading and backfill of excavations using clean, compacted-fill material.

    • Temporary and possibly permanent relocation of residents with the potential demolition of selected apartment units.

    • On-site treatment of contaminated groundwater in the surficial aquifer. Monitoring and possible withdrawal and treatment of groundwater in the alluvial aquifer. Treatment of groundwater for discharge to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works, or if unavailable, to a nearby surface water body.

    While the ROD did not explicitly state Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs), the selected remedy was intended to address unacceptable risk presented by the Site, described in the risk assessment. The risk assessment summary for the Site indicated several areas of risk for mitigation as indicated below.

    • Health risk posed at the Site is primarily from the future use of groundwater in both surficial and alluvial aquifers as a potable source.

    • Surface soils and sediments are subject to contamination from continual leaching of contaminants from the sludge as it percolates to the surface.

    The 1992 ROD was subsequently amended on June 14, 2000 with an Amended ROD (AROD). The RAOs for the Site remained unaltered but the major components of the amended remedy were as follows:

    • Development of a phased approach to implement the amended remedy during the Remedial Design (RD).

    • Demolition, removal, and off-site disposal to an approved facility of all buildings, foundations, concrete walkways, asphalt driveways and parking areas.

    • Excavation, off-site treatment and disposal of the remaining source material (sludge, sediments and contaminated soils) at an approved disposal facility as determined appropriate by RCRA criteria and the waste sampling results from TCLP testing to aid in restoring and protecting groundwater quality.

    • Reconstitution of the groundwater monitoring program at the Site after the backfilling and regrading of excavated areas had been completed.

    • Postponement of the 1992 ROD requirement for on-site extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater and compliance monitoring. Implementation was to be contingent upon the results of the baseline groundwater sampling and evaluation of the quarterly groundwater monitoring data. The groundwater response action would be revaluated to consider new groundwater monitoring data collected after the source removal action completion and determine whether or not the groundwater restoration could be achieved using Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA).

    Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD)

    On September 25, 2007, the EPA issued an ESD for the Redwing Site. In the ESD, the EPA revised the 1992 ROD subsurface soil cleanup levels for Acetone, Aldrin, Alpha-BHC, and Dieldrin. The remedy at the Site is protective of human health and the environment because the surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment and groundwater at the Site met performance standards established in the ROD, AROD, and the ESD.

    Response Actions

    Redwing continued periodic removal of surface seeps until 1994, when they discontinued work at the Site. On July 5, 1995, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to Redwing and Saraland Apartments, Ltd. directing them to conduct a removal of tar seeps at the Site. When both parties declined to comply with the order, the EPA undertook the removal action. The removal action consisted of the removal and off-site disposal of 288 55-gallon drums of investigation derived waste, approximately 5 cubic yards of stockpiled soil and approximately 10 gallons of “tar like material” (TLM) from 13 tar seeps.

    During the spring of 1996, the tar seeps returned, and on July 12, 1996, the EPA issued a UAO to Redwing and Saraland Apartments, Ltd. directing them to remove the source of the tar seeps. When both parties refused to comply with the order, the EPA conducted a removal action, which consisted of temporarily relocating 57 families living in the complex and excavating and transporting off-site for disposal approximately 20,724 tons of sludge, contaminated soil, and debris. These contaminated materials were transported as nonhazardous waste, after passing TCLP sampling analysis, to the Browning-Ferris Industries' Falcon Incinerator in Brewton, Alabama. Trucks were lined prior to filling to prevent further contamination and utilized fabric covers during transport to prevent soils from leaving the vehicle during transport. Once received at the disposal site, the materials were emptied into a covered shed to await thermal treatment in the primary incinerator with a minimum temperature of 700 °F. After the removal was completed, air monitoring conducted in the Apartments detected unacceptable levels of benzene and the pesticide, Aldrin, in some of the Apartments. Based on this monitoring, the EPA determined that the residents could not return to live in the Apartments. Working together, the EPA and HUD relocated the residents to comparable permanent housing.

    In July 1997, the EPA collected soil, sediment and water samples from 23 properties adjacent to the Redwing Site. The purpose of this sampling was to address community concerns about possible releases from the Site. Based on a risk evaluation of the analytical results of these samples, the EPA determined that there is no unacceptable health risk or hazard in the neighborhood adjacent to the Site.

    Remedy Implementation

    The Redwing PRP conducted the remedial action pursuant to the February 26, 2002 RD/Remedial Action (RA) Consent Decree. Site demolition activities started in March 2004 and were completed in June 2004. During the demolition, 5,700 cubic yards of demolition debris was transported off-site for disposal and 3,915 cubic yards of asphalt and concrete were transported off-site for recycling. All debris was visually inspected and any debris found with visually questionable materials were sampled prior to transport to ensure that none of the debris failed RCRA criteria and waste sampling results from TCLP testing. None of the construction debris failed RCRA criteria and waste sampling results from TCLP, and as a result, all debris was transported to Jarrett Rd. Landfill in Pritchard, Alabama, a RCRA permitted construction debris facility, as required by the ROD.

    The EPA approved the Final RD Report on June 28, 2007. The Site RA started in mid-December 2007 and was completed in June 2008. The excavation of TLM-contaminated soil was executed by the removal of blocks of soil to predetermined depths based on analytical results from the pre-design investigation. Additional TLM-contaminated soil was removed laterally based on visual inspection and presence on excavated sidewalls. Additional soil was excavated from the bottom of pre-determined excavation block depths based on confirmation analysis. Specifically, five-point composite samples were collected at the bottom of each excavation block and analyzed for the contaminants of concern (COC) established in the ROD. If the concentration of any constituent resulted in an exceedance of the 90% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) average concentration for the Site, then additional soil was excavated and the deeper block bottom was again sampled.

    The large majority of the soils excavated from the site contained TLM and were thus removed from the Site based on that criterion. The removal of the TLM-contaminated soils resulted in the need to only remove a small amount of additional soils to meet the 90% UCL average concentration requirement for soil constituent impacts. It should be noted that carbon tetrachloride, while retained as a COC for remediation, was only found in a single surface soil sample location, which was removed during the first removal action. The COC was retained due to the risk posed for ingestion and dermal contact. The subsurface excavation pits were not sampled for carbon tetrachloride since the risk posed was related to the surface soils which had already been removed.

    During the RA, a total of 25,114 cubic yards of soil was excavated. Of this amount, approximately 21,375 cubic yards were sampled to assess for TCLP and subsequently transported off-site for disposal at Macland Disposal Center in Moss Point, Mississippi, a RCRA permitted non-hazardous waste facility, as no materials failed TCLP. The remaining soil that lacked visual signs for TLM and passed confirmation sampling, was mixed together with clean fill brought in from off-site and was used to backfill and regrade excavated areas of the Site. After regrading and seeding activities were completed, six monitoring wells were installed on-site and groundwater samples were collected in September 2008 and December 2008. The sampling detected Vernolate in one monitoring well (MW-16) at a concentration above the ROD groundwater cleanup level. The monitoring wells were resampled in March 2009, and Vernolate was again detected in MW-16 while none of the other groundwater monitoring wells were found to contain any ROD COC above their respective cleanup goals. In response to the 2008-2009 groundwater sampling, three monitoring wells were installed on adjacent property in early April 2009 to determine if contaminated groundwater had migrated off-site. No contamination was detected in these wells during the sampling event.

    The June 14, 2000 AROD delayed the implementation of the 1992 ROD requirement for groundwater extraction and treatment to allow for evaluation of the groundwater monitoring data that would be collected after the source removal action completion. During this evaluation, degradation rates for each of the groundwater contaminants of concern were determined along with a prediction of future decreases in contaminant. After this evaluation, it was determined that further groundwater remediation would not be required since it was anticipated that the groundwater cleanup levels would be achieved within a short time frame as a result of natural attenuation after the removal of the source material. The EPA approved the Final RA Report dated July 2014 in September 2014.

    Cleanup Goals

    Long-term, post-remediation groundwater monitoring was initiated after the completion of the RA in 2008 and was ongoing until late 2012. This monitoring program began with the installation of six new monitoring wells (MW-14, MW-15, MW-16, MW-17, MW-18 and MW- 19) on-site and included two monitoring wells that existed prior to the remediation (MW-12U and MW-13U). These eight wells were sampled in September 2008, December 2008 and March 2009 for the following constituents: Sulfate, Chloride, Beryllium (total and dissolved), Total Chromium (total and dissolved), Nickel (total and dissolved), Vanadium (total and dissolved), Total Organic Carbon, Methylene Chloride, Acetone, Carbon Disulfide, Chloroform, Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, Vernolate, Lindane, Alpha-BHC, 4,4-DDT, Dieldrin and Aldrin. Only a few minor exceedances of the ROD cleanup goals were observed with the exception of Vernolate in MW-16.

    During the March 2009 sampling event, it was determined by the EPA that the groundwater cleanup goals had been met for all COCs with the exception of Vernolate. Due to the persistent exceedances of Vernolate in MW-16, three additional monitoring wells were installed off-site (MWOS-01, MWOS-02 and MWOS-03). Some members of the community were concerned with the proximity of MW-16 to the property line. All monitoring wells except MW-16 and the three off-site monitoring wells were abandoned in 2010. Monitoring continued on these three off-site wells and on-site MW-16 for Vernolate until the groundwater cleanup level was achieved in MW-16. No Vernolate was ever detected in the off-site monitoring wells.

    From September 2009 to August 2012, groundwater samples were collected quarterly from MW-16 and the three off-site monitoring wells. After reviewing the results of the Vernolate groundwater sampling, ADEM and the EPA determined that the cleanup goals specified in the 1992 ROD, 2000 AROD and 2007 ESD had been met and abandonment of the remaining monitoring wells for the Site was approved.

    Five-Year Reviews

    The first five-year review (FYR) was completed on September 25, 2014. This review concluded that the selected remedy remains protective of human health and the environment pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. Per the EPA's 2001 FYR guidance, “Five-year reviews may no longer be needed when no hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use or unrestricted exposure” (UU/UE). Since the Site is UU/UE and has met the requirements established by the ROD, it is not necessary to conduct another FYR. The EPA has a policy that at least one FYR must be conducted after initiation of remedial action at the Site to ensure that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment. This policy FYR was conducted in 2014, and it concluded that the selected remedy at the Site is protective of human health and the environment because the surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment and groundwater at the Site met performance standards established in the 1992 ROD, subsequent 2000 AROD and subsequent 2007 ESD. The policy requirement for the five-year review has been met, and accordingly, the Site FYR requirement has been discontinued.

    Community Involvement

    Throughout the removal and remedial process, the EPA has kept the public informed of the activities being conducted at the Site by way of public meetings, progress fact sheets, and the announcement through local newspaper advertisement on the availability of documents such as the RI/FS, Risk Assessment, ROD, Proposed Plan, AROD, ESD and FYRs.

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket, which the EPA relied on for recommendation of the deletion from the NPL, are available to the public in the information repositories identified above.

    Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion From the NCP

    This Site meets all the site completion requirements as specified in Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9320.22, Close-Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites. Specifically, confirmatory soil and groundwater sampling verifies that the Site has achieved the ROD cleanup standards, and that all cleanup actions specified in the ROD, AROD and ESD have been implemented.

    V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Alabama through ADEM, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. Therefore, the EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.

    Because the EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, the EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective September 28, 2015 unless the EPA receives adverse comments by September 14, 2015. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and it will not take effect. The EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

    PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    APPENDIX B TO PART 300 [AMENDED] 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing “Al”, “Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland)”, “Saraland”.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20017 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 45 CFR Chapter XVI Revised Rulemaking Protocol AGENCY:

    Legal Services Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Announcement—adoption of revised rulemaking protocol.

    SUMMARY:

    This document sets forth the text of the revised rulemaking protocol adopted by the LSC Board of Directors.

    DATES:

    This policy statement and protocol became effective on July 18, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295-1563 (phone), (202) 337-6519 (fax), or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In order to carry out its mission, the Legal Services Corporation (“LSC” or “Corporation”) is authorized under the LSC Act to issue binding federal regulations with the force of law. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has described LSC as possessing “general rulemaking authority.” Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc., et al. v. Legal Services Corporation, 940 F.2d 685, 692 (D.C. Cir. 1991); see 42 U.S.C. 2996e. The LSC Act specifies, however, that the Corporation “shall not be considered a department, agency, or instrumentality, of the Federal Government.” 42 U.S.C. 2996d(e). Consequently, the Corporation's regulatory process is not statutorily tied to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 5 et seq.), which binds federal agencies. Instead, Congress has required more specifically that LSC “shall afford notice and reasonable opportunity for comment to interested parties prior to issuing rules, regulations, and guidelines, and it shall publish in the Federal Register at least 30 days prior to their effective date all its rules, regulations, guidelines, and instructions.” 42 U.S.C. 2996g(e). The scope of LSC's Rulemaking Protocol encompasses “rules” and “regulations,” which are interpreted as essentially synonymous and which result in codified federal regulations.

    Although the APA does not bind LSC, the Corporation has identified the broad purposes of that statute—public participation and reasoned, orderly, decision-making based on high-quality information—as consistent with its own statutory requirements and the general goals of regulation. LSC is also guided by other best practices broadly adopted by federal agencies, which include Executive Orders 12866 (1993) and 13563 (2011) and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4 (2003).

    Collectively, these documents suggest that regulation should proceed by demonstrating why action is needed and should be justified by a consideration of the costs and benefits of the regulatory approach chosen. Costs and benefits may be qualitative or quantitative and include outcomes related to the widespread distribution of “equity, human dignity, [and] fairness,” 1 which is in accord with the goals of the LSC Act. In addition, these federal best practices remind us to maintain regulatory flexibility where possible by specifying objectives rather than detailed rules, and also to engage in a regular examination of existing regulations to identify those that are redundant, unnecessary, or in need of modification.

    1See E.O. 13563, sec. 1(c).

    LSC intends that an important source of new rulemaking activity and agenda items will be an ongoing retrospective review of its existing regulations. LSC's regulations are not voluminous, and to the extent they can be improved, they should be, as time and resources allow. In particular, LSC will examine its regulations to identify those where costs and burdens can be lessened without compromising effectiveness, or where effectiveness can be increased without increasing cost. It also will identify, with the input of the Office of Inspector General, regulations that are outdated or otherwise no longer useful or manageable, and those rules implicated by LSC's Strategic Plan. In order to maintain this process of continuous improvement, however, LSC anticipates the need for assistance from the regulated community, which is in the best position to highlight unanticipated problems that have arisen from particular regulatory provisions.

    Similarly, existing nonregulatory guidance, including Program Letters and External Opinions, may often be a basis for agenda items. For a variety of reasons, it may be useful to codify successful guidance following a notice and comment process. In other cases, LSC may identify this guidance as founded in outdated regulation and as problematic in practice; revision of the underlying regulations would then be called for. Because of these important relationships between guidance and regulation, LSC's commitment to retrospective review extends to its guidance documents, as does its reliance on the communicated experience of the public and regulated community.

    Rulemaking Protocol of the Legal Services Corporation (2015) I. Purposes, Principles, and Authorities

    The purpose of this protocol is to explain the procedures used by LSC in the development, modification, rescission, and promulgation of its regulations, currently codified beginning at 45 CFR part 1600. The regulatory principles guiding LSC are intended to advance its overall mission as an organization: To provide financial support for legal assistance in civil matters to persons financially unable to afford legal assistance in a manner consistent with the LSC Act and other statutory directives of Congress. See 42 U.S.C. 2996b(a). LSC, in particular, is asked “to insure that grants and contracts are made so as to provide the most economical and effective delivery of legal assistance to persons” eligible for LSC-funded services. 42 U.S.C. 2996f(a)(3).

    LSC first developed a formal rulemaking protocol in 2000. The rulemaking protocol was revised in 2002. The Board of Directors of LSC (“Board”) at that time believed that while there was no legal requirement for rulemaking procedures to be formalized in a written protocol, it was appropriate for LSC to produce such a document. As an independent entity not bound by the Administrative Procedure Act, LSC does not follow precisely the standardized regulatory processes of federal agencies, and in the interests of conducting its business in an open and fair way, LSC should make its rulemaking procedure generally known. The Board issuing this Protocol has determined these views to be sensible and has also determined that further revisions would be useful. This 2015 revision reflects more than a decade's worth of experience in rulemaking under the prior protocol and in addition incorporates certain trends in regulations, such as the emphasis on outcomes and on cost-benefit analysis.

    It should be noted that because this Protocol is a statement of LSC internal procedure and is not itself a “rule, regulation, guideline or instruction,” LSC is not required by law to publish this Protocol or seek public comment. LSC is choosing to publish this Protocol in the Federal Register (and has also posted it on the LSC Web site at http://www.lsc.gov) in furtherance of LSC's general policy of transparency.2 The Protocol begins with an overview of the rulemaking process as usually conducted and then proceeds to a more detailed discussion of the steps involved and certain variations that may occur.

    2 Although this Protocol reflects LSC policy, it is not intended to and shall not create or confer any rights for or on behalf of any person or party and shall not establish legally enforceable rights against LSC or establish any legally enforceable obligations on the part of LSC, its directors, officers, employees and other agents.

    II. Summary of the Usual Rulemaking Process

    The Operations and Regulations Committee (“Committee”) is responsible for identifying rulemaking priorities for the Corporation in consultation with LSC management (“Management”) and LSC's Office of Inspector General (“OIG”), and for laying the groundwork for the Board's initial consideration of a regulatory change. The usual vehicle for the Committee's work will be a Rulemaking Agenda (“Agenda”), revised at least annually. Through the Agenda, Management will propose a prioritized list of regulatory actions that the Committee will consider for action and presentation to the Board. The Agenda will serve as a work plan for the Committee and LSC staff.

    As items from the Rulemaking Agenda come up for Committee consideration, LSC staff will produce a written statement describing the need for regulatory action. This document, termed a Justification Memorandum (“Memorandum”), is intended to be flexible in character, and will be of a length and scope appropriate to the issue. The Memorandum will contain a recommendation from Management regarding whether or not to authorize rulemaking.

    Final authority over LSC rulemaking policies and actions rests with the Board. Under the LSC Act, the Board has the legal authority to initiate, terminate, or otherwise direct a rulemaking at any duly authorized meeting. Under normal circumstances, the Board will take three votes on a rulemaking:

    (Vote 1) To authorize rulemaking (Vote 2) To publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) for notice and comment (Vote 3) To publish a Final Rule

    Prior to each of these votes, the Committee normally will engage in public deliberation on the rulemaking, and the meeting or meetings at which such deliberations occur will include an opportunity for public comment. Upon concluding its deliberations, the Committee will vote on and issue a recommendation to the Board.

    III. Rulemaking Protocol in Detail Step 1—Issue Identification and Inclusion on the Agenda

    The initial impetus for a rulemaking may come from a variety of sources, including:

    • New studies or other evidence;

    • Initiatives arising from the Corporation's Strategic Plan;

    • Retrospective review of the Corporation's regulations;

    • Congressional directives;

    • Board or Committee decisions;

    • Requests from Management, the OIG, or individual members of the Board or Committee; or

    • Petitions or recommendations from the regulated community and general public.

    Management is responsible for compiling and conveying these possibilities, together with its views, for Committee consideration. At minimum, this will occur annually during revision of the Rulemaking Agenda.3 It may, however, occur at any time as circumstances dictate or if a potential rulemaking is time-sensitive. From the possibilities presented by Management, the Committee will determine which items to include or exclude from further consideration for the coming year and will also indicate general priorities among the items included.

    3 This parallels the practice followed by many federal agencies of publishing their regulatory plans semi-annually in the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (www.reginfo.gov). LSC is not required to include its regulatory plans in this document, and its creation of a Rulemaking Agenda should not be interpreted as indicating intent at this time to participate in the Unified Agenda or to follow its requirements.

    The annual preparation of the Agenda (and any significant revisions) will be reported to the Board at its Spring quarterly meeting. The Committee normally will develop the Agenda without Board action, but rather in consultation with Management and the OIG. The Board may specifically act to place (or remove) items on the Agenda. During the course of the year, the Committee may authorize LSC to undertake rulemakings that were not placed on the Rulemaking Agenda.

    Step 2—The Need for Regulation and the Justification Memorandum

    Generally, Management will work on items on the Rulemaking Agenda in the order of priority established by the Committee. Management will present each item to the Committee at a public meeting. Prior to that meeting, Management will prepare a Justification Memorandum discussing the potential rulemaking for the Committee and the Board. This Memorandum will discuss the need for the regulatory action and Management's views on whether action is necessary or desirable. The Memorandum represents Management's considered view on the initiation of rulemaking and is developed in consultation with the OIG. OIG's views may be incorporated in the Memorandum submitted by Management, or OIG may submit them to the Committee independently.

    Beyond these elements, the format of the Memorandum will be determined by the characteristics of each particular proposed rulemaking. Often, the focus at this early stage of the rulemaking will be simply on whether some change is warranted, rather than an assessment of any specific changes or routes by which they could be achieved. The Memorandum may discuss and evaluate:

    • The effects of acting or not acting on a particular rulemaking proposal;

    • The costs and benefits of engaging in rulemaking, compared to the status quo;

    • Whether LSC needs additional information from the public before it can proceed with drafting an NPRM; and

    • The suitability of particular processes, such as fact-gathering through a rulemaking workshop with stakeholders.

    In other circumstances, where rulemaking is needed to conform the rule to statutory or regulatory changes, none of these analyses may be necessary.

    Management may provide the Committee and the Board with privileged advice related to a proposed rulemaking. That advice may be provided in writing, as well as in a closed session of the Committee or Board's meeting, as permitted by the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    The Committee will consider the Memorandum at a public meeting, and a copy of the Memorandum (but not any privileged material) will be publicly available, either physically or online, at the time of the meeting. The Committee will then provide an independent recommendation to the Board on the advisability of initiating rulemaking. Instead of issuing a recommendation, the Committee may also choose to request further work by Management on particular issues and development of a revised Memorandum, which the Committee will consider at future public meeting.

    If the Committee makes a recommendation to the Board, it is asking the Board to take the first of its votes on a particular rulemaking. The Board also has the option of requesting further work and a revised Memorandum before acting on the Committee's recommendation. If the Board votes to not initiate rulemaking without further instruction, it is effectively removing the rulemaking from the Rulemaking Agenda. If the Board votes to initiate rulemaking, it may attach to its vote further instructions regarding the scope of the rulemaking, particular changes desired, or processes to be used in developing the rule.

    In certain circumstances, including time-sensitive matters that are relatively straightforward and anticipated to be uncontroversial, an accelerated process may be employed that combines Step 2 and Step 3 (discussed below). This would involve Management's preparation, with the concurrence of the Committee, of a Memorandum and a draft of an NPRM. If the Committee votes to recommend rulemaking, it could then proceed at the same meeting to consider a recommendation regarding the draft NPRM, and then present both recommendations in a combined motion to the Board. The Board could then choose to authorize both the opening of rulemaking and the publication of the NPRM for comment. In these circumstances, the Memorandum should contain a separate justification for the use of this accelerated process.

    Step 3—The Development of the Proposed Rule

    Once the Board votes to open rulemaking, Management and the Committee will work together to oversee the process of developing the rule. For relatively straightforward rules, this may involve simply converting the Memorandum into the preamble of a draft NPRM, accompanied by proposed regulatory changes.

    More complex rulemakings, especially those with different alternatives for regulating a particular issue, may call for public engagement at an early stage. The Committee, after consulting with Management, may vote at a public meeting to authorize preliminary information-gathering actions. Should the Committee use these methods, it will regularly report its actions and the results of its efforts to the Board.

    In particular, rulemaking may be enhanced in some cases by the issuance of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”) or a Request for Information (“RFI”) that solicits comments on certain issues or requests certain factual information at an early stage of the rulemaking process. An ANPRM or RFI may also be useful in collecting public views on the scope of the proposed rulemaking and on what issues to include or exclude from the proposed rule. In addition, if the costs and benefits associated with the rulemaking are unclear, LSC may use an ANPRM or an RFI to request that public input and data be provided to help understand the costs and benefits more clearly and accurately.

    Alternatively, LSC may choose to seek public input through Rulemaking Workshops. Rulemaking Workshops consist of one or more publicly noticed meetings of the Committee with the participation of Management, invited stakeholder representatives, and other interested and well-informed parties. Workshops are open discussions designed to elicit information about problems or concerns with the regulation (or certain aspects thereof) and provide an opportunity for sharing ideas regarding how to address those issues. Using whatever electronic and online methods are feasible, the Workshop should be open to observation by, and input from, the general public, including those not physically present with the Committee. The Workshop is not generally intended to develop detailed alternatives or to obtain consensus on regulatory proposals, and the primary anticipated role of Committee members would be to engage other participants with relevant questions rather than issue immediate decisions.

    A Negotiated Rulemaking 4 is another alternative to develop an NPRM for a particular item. If the Committee determines this is the best approach, it will work with Management to designate a group of external representatives that will then meet with Management over an extended period, under supervision of a professional facilitator, in order to develop consensus regarding particular regulatory alternatives and the form of a draft NPRM.

    4 For further general information, see Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, codified at 5 U.S.C. 561-70. LSC would be generally guided in the conduct of a negotiated rulemaking, should it choose to conduct one, by the principles and models contained in these statutes, but its particular parameters would be designated by the LSC Board of Directors, acting through the Committee.

    The above mechanisms do not exhaust the ways LSC may develop its proposed rules. Where appropriate, LSC may publish general or specific requests for comment or surveys or use social media to seek public input on a proposed rule.

    After gathering the necessary input, and as directed by the Committee, LSC staff will be responsible for drafting the NPRM in consultation with the OIG. LSC staff will submit the draft for review and approval or revision by the President of LSC. Once approved, Management will submit the draft NPRM to the Committee for consideration at a public meeting.

    Management will provide the draft NPRM to the Committee sufficiently in advance of the meeting to allow adequate time for consideration. The draft also will be made available both electronically in advance of the meeting and in physical form at the meeting. LSC will publish in the Federal Register a notice of the meeting announcing the placement of the draft NPRM on the Committee agenda and the availability of the draft NPRM on LSC's Web site. At the Committee meeting, Management will present the draft NPRM, and the Committee will provide a designated opportunity for public comment prior to a vote of the Committee to recommend publication. The Committee will then deliberate and decide whether to recommend that the Board publish the NPRM, recommend that the Board terminate the rulemaking, or make no recommendation to the Board, but instead return the draft to Management for further development.

    If the Board authorizes by its vote publication of the NPRM, Management will make any necessary technical revisions to the document and submit it to the Federal Register for publication. The comment period will be at least 30 days, but may be longer at the discretion of the Committee and Management, or at the direction of the Board.

    Step 4—Public Comment and the Development of the Final Rule

    LSC will accept comments submitted in either physical or electronic form by the closing date stated in the NPRM published in the Federal Register. LSC will publish the notice and the NPRM on LSC's Web site.

    Copies of all comments received during the designated comment period will be provided to the Committee and made available to other Board Members upon request. Copies of all comments will also be placed in a public docket available for inspection and copying in the FOIA Reading Room at the Corporation's offices, as well as in an electronic docket accessible from LSC's Web site.

    In addition to comments received during the comment period, any relevant public comments made to the Committee during its public meetings on the rulemaking—including written comments submitted in conjunction with oral presentations—will be considered part of the administrative record of the rulemaking and included in LSC's docket. LSC will not consider or respond to comments submitted outside of the public comment period or the relevant Committee meetings for a particular rulemaking. In the event a comment submitted outside the time periods described above raises significant substantive or procedural questions that LSC believes are likely to affect the outcome of the rulemaking, LSC may provide another opportunity for the submitter to provide the comment to LSC in a public forum or by reopening the rulemaking.

    In some circumstances, LSC may determine that publication of a revised (or “further”) NPRM (“FNPRM”) or a supplemental NPRM is necessary. These notices may be used to request comment on specific issues, on revisions to discrete parts of an NPRM, to clarify or add missing information to an existing NPRM, or in other instances where LSC wishes to obtain from or share information with the public. Such instances may include times when LSC makes material changes to the rule text proposed in the NPRM. With notice to the Board, the Committee may authorize an FNPRM or a supplemental NPRM at a public meeting, designating an additional period of public comment for no less than 30 days. The Committee may also authorize an extension or re-opening of the comment period on an existing NPRM.

    Upon the close of the comment period, and upon determination that no further comment periods are needed, Management will draft the Final Rule in consultation with the OIG. Management will submit the draft Final Rule to the Committee for consideration at a public meeting. The draft also will be made available both electronically in advance of the meeting and in physical form at the meeting. LSC will publish in the Federal Register a notice of the meeting announcing the placement of the draft Final Rule on the Committee agenda and the availability of the draft Final Rule on LSC's Web site. At the Committee meeting, Management will present the draft Final Rule, and the Committee will provide a designated opportunity for public comment prior to a vote of the Committee to recommend publication. The Committee will then deliberate and decide whether to recommend that the Board adopt the Final Rule as a federal regulation, recommend that the Board terminate the rulemaking, or make no recommendation to the Board, but instead return the draft to Management for further development.

    If the Board authorizes by its vote adoption of the Final Rule (as amended, if it chooses to do so), Management will make any necessary minor revisions to the document submitting it to the Federal Register. Any changes to LSC's regulations will also be reflected on LSC's Web site. In accordance with the LSC Act, any regulatory change will not be operative for at least 30 days after publication as a Final Rule, and this period may be extended at the discretion of the Committee and Management, or at the direction of the Board.

    Dated: August 10, 2015. Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20025 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 391 Qualifications of Drivers and Longer Combination Vehicle (LCV) Driver Instructors CFR Correction

    In Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 300 to 399, revised as of October 1, 2014, on pages 394 and 395, in § 391.2, in paragraphs (a) introductory text, (b), and (c), “(fg)” is revised to read “(f)”.

    [FR Doc. 2015-20046 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    80 157 Friday, August 14, 2015 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0037; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANE-3] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Newport, NH AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at Newport, NH, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Parlin Field Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2014-0037; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANE-3, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this proposed incorporation by reference material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed 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 proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Parlin Field Airport, Newport, NH.

    Comments Invited

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

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0037; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANE-3) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0037; Airspace Docket No. 14-ANE-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through 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 the 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 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's 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.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Parlin Field Airport, Newport, NH., providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Parlin Field Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 12.1-mile radius of the airport would be established for IFR operations.

    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.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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 proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would 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.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 71 —DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005  Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth ANE NH E5 Newport, NH [New] Parlin Field Airport, NH (Lat. 43°23′14″ N., long. 72°11′16″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 12.1-mile radius of Parlin Field Airport Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 5, 2015 . Gerald E. Lynch, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group,Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19951 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2890; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-8] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Placida, FL AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at Placida, FL, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Coral Creek Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2015-2890; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-8, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this proposed incorporation by reference material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This proposed 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 proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Coral Creek Airport, Placida, FL.

    Comments Invited

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

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-2890; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-8) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-2890; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-8.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through 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 the 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 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's 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.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Coral Creek Airport, Placida, FL, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Coral Creek Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport would be established for IFR operations.

    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.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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 proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would 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.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth ASO FL E5 Placida, FL [New] Coral Creek Airport, FL (Lat. 26°51′13″ N., long. 82°15′09″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Coral Creek Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 5, 2015. Gerald E. Lynch Acting Manager, Operations Support Group Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19950 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1234 [CPSC Docket No. 2015-0019] Safety Standard for Infant Bath Tubs AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, Section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“CPSIA”) requires the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission,” “CPSC,” or “we”) to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These standards are to be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The Commission is proposing a safety standard for infant bath tubs in response to the direction under Section 104(b) of the CPSIA. In addition, the Commission is proposing an amendment to include the proposed standard in the list of notices of requirements (NORs) issued by the Commission.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by October 28, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the marking, labeling, and instructional literature requirements of the proposed mandatory standard for infant bath tubs should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to [email protected].

    Other comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC 2015-0019, may be submitted electronically or in writing:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this proposed rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number CPSC-2015-0019, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Celestine T. Kish, Project Manager, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; email: [email protected]; telephone: (301) 987-2547.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Statutory Authority

    The CPSIA was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant and toddler products. Standards issued under section 104 are to be “substantially the same as” the applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.

    The term “durable infant or toddler product” is defined in section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years.” Section 104(f)(2) of the CPSIA lists examples of durable infant or toddler products, including products such as “bath seats” and “infant carriers.” Although section 104(f)(2) does not specifically identify infant bath tubs, the Commission has defined infant bath tubs as a “durable infant or toddler product” in the Commission's product registration card rule under CPSIA section 104(d).1

    1 Requirements for Consumer Registration of Durable Infant or Toddler Products; Final Rule, 74 FR 68668, 68669 (December 29, 2009); 16 CFR 1130.2(a)(16).

    Pursuant to section 104(b)(1)(A), the Commission consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and members of the public in the development of this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”), largely through the standards development process of ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials) (“ASTM”). The proposed rule is based on the voluntary standard developed by ASTM, ASTM F2670-13, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Bath Tubs (“ASTM F2670-13”), with several modifications to strengthen the standard.

    The testing and certification requirements of section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”) apply to product safety standards promulgated under section 104 of the CPSIA. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (test laboratories) to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject. The infant bath tub standard, if issued as a final rule, will be a children's product safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR. To meet the requirement that the Commission issue an NOR for the infant bath tub standard, this NPR proposes to amend 16 CFR part 1112 to include 16 CFR part 1234, the CFR section where the infant bath tub standard will be codified if the standard becomes final.

    II. Product Description A. Definition of Infant Bath Tub

    ASTM F2670-13 defines an “infant bath tub” as a “tub, enclosure, or other similar product intended to hold water and be placed into an adult bath tub, sink, or on top of other surfaces to provide support or containment, or both, for an infant in a reclining, sitting, or standing position during bathing by a caregiver.” ASTM F2670-13 section 3.1.2. Falling within this definition are products of various designs, including “bucket style” tubs that support a child sitting upright, tubs with an inclined seat for infants too young to sit unsupported, inflatable tubs, folding tubs, and tubs with spa features, such as handheld shower attachments and even whirlpool settings. The ASTM standard permits infant bath tubs to have “a permanent or removable passive crotch restraint as part of their design,” but does not permit “any additional restraint system(s) which requires action on the part of the caregiver to secure or release.” Id. section 6.1. ASTM F2670-13 excludes from its scope “products commonly known as bath slings, typically made of fabric or mesh.” Id. sec. 1.1.

    B. Market Description

    CPSC staff is aware of at least 26 firms that supply infant bath tubs to the U.S. market. Twenty-three of these firms are domestic, including 14 manufacturers, eight importers, and one with an unknown supply source. Three foreign companies export directly to the United States via Internet sales or to U.S. retailers.

    III. Incident Data

    CPSC staff has received detailed reports from various sources of 202 incidents related to infant bath tubs from January 1, 2004 through May 20, 2015. Thirty-one of these incidents (15%) were fatal. Of the 146 victims whose age could be determined, 141 (97%) were under 2 years of age. In the 168 incidents in which the sex of the child was reported, 54 percent of the victims were male, and 46 percent of the victims were female.

    A. Fatalities

    Thirty-one fatalities were reported to have been associated with infant bath tubs from January 1, 2004 through May 20, 2015. Drowning was the reported cause of death for 30 of the fatalities (97%); the remaining fatality involved a child with a heart defect, whose death was attributed to pneumonia. Twenty-nine of the fatality victims (94%) were between 4 months and 11 months of age; the remaining two fatality victims were 23 months and 3 years of age. In all but one of the drowning fatalities, a parent or caregiver left the victim alone in the infant bath tub, and returned to find the child submerged. Sixteen of the fatalities (52%) were male, while 15 (48%) were female.

    B. Nonfatal Injuries

    One hundred seventy-one nonfatal incidents associated with infant bath tubs were reported to have occurred from January 1, 2004 through May 20, 2015. The 171 reports included 30 reports of injuries requiring hospitalization (nine reports), emergency room treatment (nine reports), treatment by a medical professional (eight reports), or first aid (four reports). The nine incidents requiring hospitalization included eight near-drowning incidents in which a child almost died from suffocation under water, and one scalding water burn. All eight near-drowning incidents resulting in hospitalization occurred while the parent or caregiver was not present. The nine incidents requiring emergency room treatment consisted of five near-drowning incidents, a head injury caused by a bath toy detaching from a tub, a concussion from a fall from a tub located on a counter when a tub leg collapsed, one rash, and an injury caused by mold on a tub. The eight injury reports requiring a visit to a medical professional consisted of one laceration, one rash, and six injuries involving mold. The four incidents requiring home first aid resulted from finger, hand, and foot entrapments.

    C. Hazard Pattern Identification

    CPSC staff considered all 202 (31 fatal and 171 nonfatal) reported infant bath tub incidents to identify the hazard patterns associated with infant bath tub-related incidents. Staff grouped the hazard patterns into the following categories in order of frequency:

    1. Drowning/Near Drowning incidents account for 43 out of 202 (21%) of the reported incidents. Thirty of these 43 incidents were drowning fatalities; the remaining 13 incidents involved near-drownings. In 38 of the 43 drowning or near-drowning incidents (88%), the parent or guardian was not present at the time the incident occurred. Because there were no witnesses to a majority of drowning or near-drowning incidents, determining exactly what happened is difficult. Generally, the child was found floating, but exactly what transpired was unclear. One incidental fatality was attributed to pneumonia rather than drowning; this incident is discussed in the “Miscellaneous Issues” category.

    2. Protrusion/Sharp/Laceration issues accounted for 39 out of 202 (19%) of the reported incidents. In most of these incidents, the child made contact with a part that protrudes from the tub, causing red marks, cuts, or bruising. The body parts reportedly injured were toes, feet, bottom, genitalia, and back. In 29 of the 39 incidents, a protrusion described as a “bump” or “hump” caused a red mark or discomfort to the infant. In many of these protrusion incidents, a “hammock/sling” attachment was involved.

    Only one of the 39 “protrusion” incident reports required a hospital visit; in that incident, a child's back was scratched by a screw that penetrated the tub wall. The remaining 38 incidents in this category resulted in a minor injury or no injury.

    3. Product failures accounted for 53 out of 202 (26%) of the reported incidents. In 28 incidents, the “hammock” or “sling” collapsed or broke, and in eight incidents the tub's locking mechanism failed or broke. The remaining 17 “product failure” incidents involved various tub parts breaking. In two of the 53 “product failure” incidents a child was treated at a hospital and released; in the remaining incidents, there was either no injury or a minor injury. In one of the incidents requiring a hospital visit, a toy attached to a tub fell and caused a deep cut on a child's forehead. In the second incident, the leg of a tub collapsed, causing a child to fall from the counter top supporting the tub onto the floor, resulting in a concussion.

    4. Entrapment issues accounted for 20 out of 202 (10%) of the reported incidents. Entrapment incidents involved fingers, arms, feet, legs, or genitalia caught or stuck on parts of the tub, mostly in a pinching manner. Many of these injuries occurred in tubs that fold. Hinges, holes, and the foot area inside a tub were common areas of entrapment. These entrapment incidents resulted in no injury or minor injury; there were no reported hospitalizations.

    5. Slippery tub surface issues accounted for 14 of 202 (7%) of the reported incidents. These incidents resulted in minor skin abrasions or scratches, and potential submersions. These incidents resulted in no injury or minor injury.

    6. Mold/Allergy issues accounted for 12 of 202 (6%) of the reported incidents. Eight incidents were attributed to mold, and four were allergy related. The reported issues included itching, rashes, foul odor, respiratory issues, and a urinary tract infection. Eight of these incidents, six involving mold issues and two involving allergy issues, involved a single infant tub make and model. The 12 reported incidents included two emergency room visits, one for an upper respiratory issue, and one for a rash on the child's back. In seven additional incidents, children were seen by a medical professional for itching and rashes (four incidents), a urinary tract infection, a severe cold with fever, and the presence of mold spores on the genitalia.

    7. Miscellaneous issues accounted for 21 out of 202 (10%) of the reported incidents. The issues included falling out of a tub, an unstable tub, missing pieces, batteries leaking or overheating, rust, and scalding. Miscellaneous issues resulted in one fatality and one hospital admission. The fatality involved a child with a ventricular septal defect whose death was attributed to pneumonia. The hospital visit was caused by scalding when a parent poured hot water from a stove onto a tub's foam cushion and then placed the child in the tub. The rest of the reports involved no injury or a minor injury.

    D. National Injury Estimates

    CPSC also evaluates data reported through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), which gathers summary injury data from hospital emergency departments selected as a probability sample of all the U.S. hospitals with emergency departments. This surveillance information enables CPSC staff to make timely national estimates of the number of injuries associated with specific consumer products. Based on a review of emergency department visits related to infant bath tubs for the years 2004 to 2014, staff estimates that there were 2,200 injuries treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms over that 11-year period associated with infant bath tubs (sample size = 82, coefficient of variation = 0.18).2 The NEISS data included one infant death, which has been included in the fatality statistics reported above. Approximately 94 percent of the victims were 12 months of age or younger and only one of the 82 reported NEISS cases involved a child older than 24 months.

    2 NEISS reports for infant bath tub incidents are summary in nature and provide limited detail for determining hazard scenarios. For that reason, NEISS incident data are not included in our analysis and discussion of overall hazard patterns, unless a NEISS incident report was supplemented by further investigation.

    For the injuries reported through NEISS, the most prominent hazard was falling, which occurred in 33 percent of the incidents. Drowning or near-drowning occurred in 22 percent of the incidents. Head injuries were common (35%), as were body injuries (22%), and face injuries (18%). In more than 80 percent of the NEISS cases, the victim was treated at the emergency room and released, while 15 percent were admitted or transferred to a hospital.

    IV. The ASTM Infant Bath Tub Standard A. History of ASTM 2670-13

    Section 104(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA requires the Commission to consult representatives of “consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts” to “examine and assess the effectiveness of any voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products.” As a result of incidents arising from infant bath tubs, CPSC staff requested that ASTM develop voluntary requirements to address the hazard patterns related to their use. Through the ASTM process, CPSC staff consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and members of the public, and the infant bath tub standard was developed.

    ASTM F2670 was first approved in 2009, and then revised in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. The current version, ASTM F2670-13, was approved on February 15, 2013, and was published in March 2013.

    B. Description of the Current ASTM Voluntary Standard-ASTM 2670-13

    ASTM F2670-13 contains both general and performance requirements to address the hazards associated with infant bath tubs. ASTM F2670-13 includes the following key provisions: scope, terminology, general requirements, performance requirements, test methods, marking and labeling, and instructional literature.

    Scope. This section states the scope of the standard, which: “establishes performance requirements, test methods, and labeling requirements to promote the safe use of infant bath tubs.” As stated in section II.A. of this preamble, ASTM F2670-13 defines an “infant bath tub” as a “tub, enclosure, or other similar product intended to hold water and be placed into an adult bath tub, sink, or on top of other surfaces to provide support or containment, or both, for an infant in a reclining, sitting, or standing position during bathing by a caregiver.” This description includes “bucket style” tubs that support a child sitting upright, tubs with an inclined seat for infants too young to sit unsupported, inflatable tubs, folding tubs, and tubs with more elaborate designs including handheld shower attachments and even whirlpool settings. ASTM F2670-13 excludes from its scope “products commonly known as bath slings, typically made of fabric or mesh.” Id. sec. 1.1.

    Terminology. This section provides definitions of terms specific to this standard.

    Requirements and Test Methods. These sections set both general and performance requirements to address several hazards, many of which are also found in the other ASTM juvenile product standards. These requirements and test methods address:

    • Sharp edges or points (incorporating CPSC standards for sharp edges and sharp points); 3

    3 See 16 CFR 1500.48 (sharp point standard) and 1500.49 (sharp edge standard).

    • Small parts (incorporating CPSC standards for small parts); 4

    4 See 16 CFR part 1501 (small part limitations).

    • Lead in paint and surface coatings (incorporating CPSC lead and surface coating standards); 5

    5 See 16 CFR part 1303 (limitations on lead in paint and surface coatings).

    • Passive restraints;

    • Size and safety requirements for attached toys (incorporating CPSC toy standards); 6

    6 See ASTM F963, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety (ASTM F963).

    • Resistance to collapse or displacement in use;

    • Durability and strength of locking components;

    • Displacement of protective components;

    • Adherence of suction cups;

    • Permanence of labels and warnings;

    • Protection from scissoring, shearing and pinching;

    • Limits on openings; and

    • Labeling.

    Marking and Labeling. This section contains various requirements related to warnings, labeling, and required markings for infant bath tubs. This section prescribes various substance, format, and prominence requirements for such information.

    Instructional Literature. This section requires that instructions provided with infant bath tubs be easy to read and understand. Additionally, the section contains requirements for instructional literature contents and format, as well as prominence of certain language.

    V. Assessment of Voluntary Standard ASTM F2670-13

    Staff considered the fatalities, injuries, and non-injury incidents associated with infant bath tubs, and evaluated ASTM F2670-13 to determine whether the ASTM standard adequately addresses the incidents, or whether more stringent standards would further reduce the risk of injury associated with these products. We discuss the staff's assessment in this section.

    A. Warnings and the Risk of Drowning Due to Inattention by Parent or Caregiver

    From 2004 to 2014, 30 drowning fatalities and 13 near-drowning incidents have been associated with infant bath tubs. In 29 of the 30 drowning fatalities (97%), the caregiver left a child alone in an infant bath tub. In 38 of 43 total drowning or near-drowning incidents (88%), the child was left alone when the incident occurred.

    From the perspective of setting product standards, the only way caregiver behavior, such as leaving an infant unattended in an infant bath tub, can be addressed is through warnings and instructions to caregivers. Staff reviewed the warnings and instructions required by ASTM F2670-13 to determine whether the ASTM standard's provisions are adequate, or whether a more stringent standard would reduce the risk of drowning and near-drowning associated with these products. The currently required warnings include the phrases: “WARNING—DROWNING HAZARD,” in bold capital letters, “Infants have DROWNED in infant bath tubs” (with the word “DROWNED” in bold capital letters), and “ALWAYS keep infant within adult's reach.”

    Staff determined that these current warning requirements allow for considerable variation in the conspicuity and format of the warnings presented to consumers. Staff's research suggests that the impact of these warnings would be improved by providing specific guidance for a more consistent and prominent presentation of hazard information. Staff's research also indicates that changes to the size, color, content, and format of required warnings and instructions could augment the impact of the warnings and instructions for infant bath tubs, resulting in a higher level of caregiver compliance.

    Staff developed suggested wording and formatting changes for infant bath tubs that staff believed would improve the warning and instructions sections of the voluntary standard. Staff circulated these proposed wording and formatting changes to the ASTM subcommittee responsible for ASTM F2670-13, and discussed the proposed changes at a public ASTM meeting in May 2015. In response to feedback received from ASTM and stakeholders, staff made adjustments to staff's proposed warnings and instructions.

    The Commission now proposes to adopt ASTM F2670-13 with modifications to some of the warnings and instructions for infant bath tubs. In particular, the Commission proposes the following modifications:

    • Increasing the size of the text in the on-product warnings to make the warnings for infant bath tubs consistent with Commission requirements for warnings for a similar product, infant bath seats;

    • Requiring the use of a “hazard color” in the on-product and retail package warnings;

    • Revising the warning content to simplify and clarify the language and to add specific language to address the risk of falls; and

    • Specifying the format of the warnings on the product, on the retail packaging, and in the accompanying instructions to increase the potential impact of the warnings and provide a more consistent presentation of hazard information.

    Based on research relating to the efficacy of warnings and instructions, staff believes that these changes will help capture and maintain caregiver attention, personalize the tone of the warnings, be simpler to comprehend than the current warnings, and provide consistency with the warnings regarding baby bath seats, a similar product. These changes, plus the new required warning of the risk of falls, may result in increased caretaker comprehension of, and compliance with, product warnings and instructions. The Commission believes that these changes constitute more stringent warning and labeling requirements than the current standard, and will further reduce the risk of injury to infants and toddlers associated with infant bath tubs.

    B. Hazards Related to Protrusion/Sharp/Laceration Issues

    Protrusion issues were involved in 39 of 202 (19%) of the reported incidents. In one incident, a protruding screw scratched a child, resulting in a hospital visit; other incidents involved red marks, cuts, or bruising from rough or protruding edges. However, staff found no trends in the incident data involving scrapes or cuts.

    In most of the “protrusion” incidents, a “hump” or “bump” in the tub, designed to help older infants sit upright, caused a red mark or discomfort for the infant, typically when the infant bath tub was used with a hammock or sling attachment and the child made contact with the “hump.” As discussed in more detail in section V.C. of this preamble, ASTM has formed two task groups to develop new infant sling performance requirements.

    C. Hazards Related to “Bath Sling” Products

    The current ASTM standard specifically excludes bath slings, which are net or mesh products that do not hold water, are attached to an infant bath tub or a frame, and are used for bathing newborn babies and young infants. Several infant bath tub models include bath slings as part of the tub, or as an accessory.

    Staff is aware that 28 of the 53 “product failure” incidents involved bath hammocks or slings. Staff and ASTM are working to investigate how the observed risks of bath slings should be addressed. In addition, ASTM formed two task groups to address the risks of bath slings. One group is developing performance requirements for infant slings that can only be used with infant bath tubs, which will be addressed in the infant bath tub standard. A second group is developing requirements for bath slings that are used separately or as tub accessories, which will be addressed under a new, separate standard.

    D. Latching or Locking Mechanism Testing

    A number of incidents involved tub locking mechanisms that failed or broke. Staff believes the current standard for latch mechanism testing in ASTM F2670-13, section 7.1.2., which requires that latches be tested more than 2,000 cycles, is appropriately stringent. However, staff also has observed that some complex locking and latching mechanisms are difficult to test within the required “cycle time” of 12 cycles per minute. Staff has worked with ASTM to find an alternate method of conducting this test to make testing results for infant bath tubs more accurate and consistent. Staff has determined that requiring the 2,000-cycle testing to be conducted on a “continuous basis” will allow more designs of infant bath tubs to be tested consistently and accurately to the standard of section 7.1.2. Moreover, ASTM is currently considering adopting the change that staff suggested to ASTM, but has not yet done so.

    In this NPR, the Commission proposes to modify section 7.1.2 to improve the accuracy and consistency of the mandatory product testing. The Commission also proposes adding an Appendix regarding section 7.1.2, to clarify that although the cadence of testing has changed to accommodate a broader variety of infant bath tub designs, the intent of the standard is to require continuous testing while maintaining a rate as close to 12 cycles per minute as can reasonably be achieved. The Commission believes these changes will augment product safety by improving the accuracy, consistency, and repeatability of durability testing.

    E. Static Load Testing.

    The static load testing requirement and the testing for resistance to collapse in the infant bath tub standard is intended to address the issue of breaks. Infant bath tubs are required to support a load of 50 lbs. (22.7 kg.), or three times the maximum weight recommended by the manufacturer, whichever is greater, for 20 minutes. Staff believes that the current load testing provides an appropriate level of protection from breakage. However, staff also has determined that the current testing standard, which mandates the use of a 6″ x 6″ block of high-density polyethylene to provide the required weight, may damage some infant bath tub designs, which could create additional risks. Staff recommended to ASTM that the required polyethylene block be rounded on the corners; but ASTM decided to replace the block with a bag of steel shot for static load testing. This matter was addressed at an ASTM public meeting, was balloted and approved by ASTM, and will be added to the next published edition of the ASTM standard. The Commission believes that including this modification in the NPR will augment product safety by improving the accuracy, consistency, and repeatability of static load testing.

    F. Entrapment

    Entrapments accounted for 20 of 202 reported incidents (10%). Most of the incidents involved body parts becoming stuck or caught in a tub, and most of those incidents involved pinching. Many of the incidents involved folding tubs. However, staff found no trends in this incident data. The Commission believes that the current infant bath tub standard's requirements for scissoring, shearing, and pinching (section 5.5) and Openings (section 5.6) are appropriate to protect the public.

    G. Slippery Surfaces

    Slippery tub surfaces accounted for 14 of the 202 reported incidents (7%), resulting in abrasions and submersions but no injuries. Most of these incidents contain little detail. Therefore, the Commission is not proposing any modifications to the ASTM infant bath tub standard regarding this issue. Staff will continue to monitor, collect, and study details on slip-related fall and submersion incidents in infant tubs. In addition, staff will work with ASTM, if warranted, to develop appropriate performance requirements to address slip-related fall and submersion incidents.

    H. Mold/Allergy Issues

    The mold and allergy issues involved itching, rashes, foul odor, respiratory issues, and a urinary tract infection. This is a difficult issue to address through performance requirements because the issue arises from the consumer's inability to clean and dry the infant tub to prevent mold. Therefore, the Commission is not proposing any modifications to the ASTM infant bath tub standard regarding this issue. However, CPSC staff will continue to review the incident data. If warranted, staff will address this matter through the ASTM process to determine whether additional instructions or warnings would be effective in reducing this risk.

    I. Miscellaneous Issues

    Miscellaneous issues included falling out of the tub, unstable tubs, missing pieces, batteries leaking or overheating, rust and scalding. Incidents in this category included one fatality that was attributed to pneumonia and one hospitalization from scalding. The rest of the reports were incidents with no injury or a minor injury. Staff's review of these miscellaneous incidents did not result in any recommendations to change the infant bath tub standard.

    VI. Proposed CPSC Standard for Infant Bath Tubs

    The Commission is proposing to incorporate by reference ASTM F2670-13, with certain modifications to strengthen the standard. As discussed in the previous section, the Commission concludes that these modifications will further reduce the risk of injury associated with infant bath tubs.

    Section 1234.1 would state the scope of the rule; infant bath tubs. The definition of “infant bath tub” is provided in ASTM F2670-13 section 3.1.2.

    Section 1234.2(a) would incorporate by reference ASTM F2670-13, with the exception of certain provisions that the Commission proposes to modify.

    Section 1234.2(b) would detail the changes and modifications to ASTM F2670-13 that the Commission has determined would further reduce the risk of injury from infant bath tubs. In particular:

    Section 7.1.2, Latching or Locking Mechanism Durability, would be changed to permit continuous testing of infant bath tub latches through 2,000 cycles. An Appendix regarding section 7.1.2 would be added to clarify that the cadence of testing has been changed to accommodate tubs that could not be tested at the previous rate of 12 cycles per minute, but that testing is to be conducted continuously while maintaining a rate as close to the previous standard as possible.

    Section 7.4.2 would be changed to require that a 50 lb. (22.7 kg) bag of steel shot is to be used to test infant bath tubs in the required static load testing, rather than a block of high-density polyethylene, which might damage or puncture some tubs. Additionally, the text of this section would be changed to make the required weight equivalent, whether stated in pounds or kilograms.

    Section 8.4 would be changed to require warning statements on infant bath tubs and infant bath tub retail packaging to have prescribed warning language, and for the warning statements to be permanent, conspicuous, in contrasting color(s), bordered, and in type larger than currently required. Section 8.4 will also require additional warnings for infant bath tubs with suction cups. The changes would be accompanied by exemplar warnings.

    Section 9 would be changed to require that instructional literature for infant bath tubs contain new prescribed warnings regarding the risks of drowning or falling; explain the proper use of the product; and emphasize the safety practices stated in the warnings. The instructions must also address appropriate temperature ranges for bath water, and instruct users to discontinue use of infant bath tubs that become damaged, broken, or disassembled. The changes would be accompanied by an exemplar warning.

    VII. Incorporation by Reference

    Section 1234.2(a) of the proposed rule incorporates by reference ASTM F2670-13. The Office of the Federal Register (“OFR”) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. The OFR recently revised these regulations to require that, for a proposed rule, agencies must discuss in the preamble to the NPR ways that the materials the agency proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested persons, or explain how the agency worked to make the materials reasonably available. In addition, the preamble to the proposed rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(a).

    In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section IV.B. of this preamble summarizes the provisions of ASTM F2670-13 that the Commission proposes to incorporate by reference. ASTM F2670-13 is copyrighted. By permission of ASTM, the standard can be viewed as a read-only document during the comment period on this NPR, at: http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. Interested persons may also purchase a copy of ASTM F2670-13 from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://www.astm.org. One may also inspect a copy at CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923.

    VIII. Amendment of 16 CFR Part 1112 To Include NOR for Infant Bath Tubs

    The CPSA establishes certain requirements for product certification and testing. Products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Certification of children's products subject to a children's product safety rule must be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body. Id. 2063(a)(2). The Commission must publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject. Id. 2063(a)(3). Thus, the proposed rule for 16 CFR part 1234, Safety Standard for Infant Bath Tubs, if issued as a final rule, would be a children's product safety rule requiring the issuance of an NOR.

    The Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (“part 1112”) and effective on June 10, 2013, establishing requirements for CPSC acceptance of third party conformity assessment bodies to test for conformance with a children's product safety rule in accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. Part 1112 also codifies all of the NORs previously issued by the Commission.

    All new NORs for new children's product safety rules, such as the infant bath tub standard, require an amendment to part 1112. To meet the requirement that the Commission issue an NOR for the proposed infant bath tub standard, as part of this NPR, the Commission proposes to amend the existing rule that codifies the list of all NORs issued by the Commission to add infant bath tubs to the list of children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued an NOR.

    Test laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for infant bath tubs would be required to meet the third party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in part 1112. When a laboratory meets the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR part 1234, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Bath Tubs, included in the laboratory's scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for the laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.

    IX. Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires that the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The Commission is proposing an effective date of 6 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register for products manufactured or imported on or after that date. The proposed rule does not require manufacturers to make design or manufacturing changes; rather, the proposed rule requires only that manufacturers create and print new labels. The two product testing recommendations require a simple change in equipment (replacing a block of high-density polyethylene with a 50-lb. shot bag), and a timing change in the cycle testing for latches or locking mechanisms. Similar equipment and testing methods are already used in child product testing, so the testing changes can be made without delay. The 6-month period will allow ample time for manufacturers and importers to arrange for third party testing, and this is consistent with the timeframe adopted in a number of other section 104 rules.

    We also propose a 6-month effective date for the amendment to part 1112.

    We ask for comments on the proposed 6-month effective date.

    X. Regulatory Flexibility Act A. Introduction

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires agencies to consider the impact of proposed rules on small entities, including small businesses. The RFA generally requires agencies to review proposed rules for their potential impact on small entities and prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (“IRFA”) unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 605. Because staff was unable to estimate precisely all costs of the draft proposed rule, staff conducted such an analysis. The IRFA must describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities and identify any alternatives that may reduce the impact. Specifically, the IRFA must contain:

    • A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;

    • A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered;

    • A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;

    • A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for the preparation of reports or records;

    • Identification, to the extent possible, of all relevant federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; and

    • A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and minimize the rule's economic impact on small entities.

    B. Market Description

    CPSC staff is aware of at least 26 firms that supply infant bath tubs to the U.S. market. Twenty-three of these firms are domestic. Of the domestic firms, 14 are manufacturers, eight are importers, and one has an unknown supply source. Seventeen of the domestic firms qualify as “small firms” under the guidelines of the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”). Three foreign companies export to the United States via Internet sales or to U.S. retailers.

    C. Reason for Agency Action and Legal Basis for Proposed Rule

    The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, section 104 of the CPSIA, requires the CPSC to promulgate mandatory standards that are substantially the same as or more stringent than, the voluntary standards for durable infant or toddler products. The proposed rule implements that congressional direction.

    D. Other Federal Rules

    Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires every manufacturer and private labeler of a children's product that is subject to a children's product safety rule to certify, based on third party testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted laboratory that the product complies with all applicable children's product safety rules. Section 14(i)(2) of the CPSA requires the Commission to establish protocols and standards requiring children's products to be tested periodically and when there has been a material change in the product, and safeguarding against any undue influence on a conformity assessment body by a manufacturer or private labeler. A final rule implementing these requirements, Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification (16 CFR part 1107) became effective on February 13, 2013 (the “1107 Rule”). If a final children's product safety rule for infant bath tubs is adopted by the Commission, infant bath tubs will be subject to the third party testing requirements, including record keeping, when the final rule becomes effective.

    Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish an NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (i.e., testing laboratories) for each children's product safety rule. The NORs for existing rules are set forth in 16 CFR part 1112. If the Commission adopts a final rule on infant bath tubs, publication of a NOR establishing requirements for the accreditation of testing laboratories will be required.

    E. Impact of the New Standards and Testing Requirements on Small Businesses

    Under SBA guidelines, a manufacturer of infant bath tubs is categorized as “small” if it has 500 or fewer employees, and importers and wholesalers are considered “small” if they have 100 or fewer employees. Based on these guidelines, 17 of the 23 domestic firms known to be supplying infant bath tubs to the U.S. market are small firms: 10 manufacturers, six importers, and one firm with an unknown supply source.

    Small Domestic Manufacturers. The impact of the proposed rule is not likely to be significant for small manufacturers. Based on information on firms' Web sites, staff believes six domestic manufacturers already comply with the current infant bath tub standard. This includes two infant bath tub manufacturers that are certified by the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (“JPMA”), the major U.S. trade association that represents juvenile product manufacturers and importers, as compliant with the voluntary standard. Firms already in compliance with the infant bath tub standard will not need to make physical modifications to their products, but will have to make modifications regarding the warnings and instructions with their products. The costs of modifying existing labeling are usually small.

    The four domestic manufacturers who do not appear to be in compliance with the infant bath tub standard might need to modify their products. However, these modifications are likely to be minor because the products are not complex; infant bath tubs generally are composed of one or two pieces of hard or soft plastic molded together. Modifications would primarily involve adjusting the size of grooves or openings on the side of the product to avoid finger entrapment. Therefore, the impact of the proposed rule is likely to be small for producers who do not yet comply with the infant bath tub standard.

    Under section 14 of the CPSA, should the Commission adopt the infant bath tub standard as a final rule, all manufacturers will be subject to the additional costs associated with the third party testing and certification requirements under the testing and labeling rule (16 CFR part 1107). Third party testing will include any physical and mechanical test requirements specified in the final infant bath tub rule that may be issued; lead testing is already required. Third party testing costs are in addition to the direct costs of meeting the infant bath tub standard.

    Based on testing costs for similar juvenile products, staff estimates that testing to the infant bath tub standard could cost approximately $500-$600 per model sample. On average, each small domestic manufacturer supplies three different models of infant bath tubs to the U.S. market annually. Therefore, if third party testing were conducted every year on a single sample for each model, third party testing costs for each manufacturer would be about $1,500-$1,800 annually. Based on a review of firms' revenues, which were, on average, about $29 million annually, it seems unlikely that the impacts of the rule will be economically significant for small producers.

    Small Domestic Importers. Staff believes that four of the six small importers are compliant with the current infant bath tub standard, and would only need to assure that their suppliers make the label modifications to comply with the proposed rule. The two remaining importers might need to find an alternate source of infant bath tubs if their existing suppliers do not come into compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule. Alternatively, these firms may discontinue importing infant bath tubs altogether and perhaps substitute another product.

    Importers of infant bath tubs will be subject to third party testing and certification requirements, and will experience the associated costs if their supplier(s) does not perform third party testing. Based upon review of the firms' revenues, which were, on average, about $4.0 million annually, the impact of the testing requirements could exceed 1 percent of revenues if the firms needed to test more than one unit per model. Hence, staff cannot rule out a significant economic impact on small domestic importers due to the testing requirements.

    As mentioned above, one small domestic firm has an unknown supply source. However, the firm has a diverse product line and claims to be compliant with various standards for several of its other infant products. It is possible that its infant bath tub is already compliant with ASTM F2670-13, and thus, would only have to modify existing labels. Regardless, this firm should not experience large impacts because infant bath tubs are only one of many products this firm supplies.

    In summary, staff concluded that the impact of the proposed rule is unlikely to be economically significant for most firms, but is unable to conclude that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on small importers.

    Alternatives. Under section 104 of the CPSIA, the Commission is required to promulgate a standard that is either substantially the same as the voluntary standard or more stringent. The Commission could promulgate the existing voluntary standard without revision. However, the proposed warning labels and testing procedures are not expected to have a substantial impact on costs to small businesses. Another alternative that would reduce the impact on small entities is to set an effective date later than the proposed 6 months. This would allow manufacturers additional time to modify and/or develop compliant infant bath tubs, thus spreading the costs associated with compliance over a longer period of time.

    F. Impact of Proposed 16 CFR Part 1112 Amendment on Small Businesses

    As required by the RFA, staff conducted a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) when the Commission issued the part 1112 rule (78 FR 15836, 15855-58). Briefly, the FRFA concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small testing laboratories because no requirements were imposed on test laboratories that did not intend to provide third party testing services. The only test laboratories that were expected to provide such services were those that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business decision.

    Based on similar reasoning, amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include the NOR for the infant bath tub standard will not have a significant adverse impact on small test laboratories. Moreover, based upon the number of test laboratories in the United States that have applied for CPSC acceptance of accreditation to test for conformance to other mandatory juvenile product standards, we expect that only a few test laboratories will seek CPSC acceptance of their accreditation to test for conformance with the infant bath tub standard. Most of these test laboratories will have already been accredited to test for conformance to other mandatory juvenile product standards, and the only costs to them would be the cost of adding the infant bath tub standard to their scope of accreditation. As a consequence, the Commission certifies that the NOR amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include the infant bath tub standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    XI. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations address whether we are required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Under these regulations, a rule that has “little or no potential for affecting the human environment” is categorically exempt from this requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The proposed rule falls within the categorical exemption.

    XII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:

    • A title for the collection of information;

    • A summary of the collection of information;

    • A brief description of the need for the information and the proposed use of the information;

    • A description of the likely respondents and proposed frequency of response to the collection of information;

    • An estimate of the burden that shall result from the collection of information; and

    • Notice that comments may be submitted to the OMB.

    Title: Safety Standard for Infant Bath Tubs.

    Description: The proposed rule would require each infant bath tub to comply with ASTM F2670-13, with the changes proposed in this Notice, which contains requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature. These requirements fall within the definition of “collection of information,” as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).

    Description of Respondents: Persons who manufacture or import infant bath tubs.

    Estimated Burden: We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 16 CFR Section Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • responses
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • 1234.2 26 3 78 1 78

    Our estimate is based on the following:

    Section 8.1 of the infant bath tub standard requires that the name of the manufacturer, distributor, or seller, and either the place of business (city, state, and mailing address, including zip code) or telephone number, or both, to be marked clearly and legibly on each product and its retail package. Section 8.1.2 requires a code mark or other means that identifies the date (month and year, as a minimum) of manufacture. Section 8.4 describes required safety labeling.

    There are 26 known entities supplying infant bath tubs to the U.S. market. All firms are assumed to use labels already on both their products and their packaging, but they may need to make some modifications to their existing labels. Based on an informal survey by staff, the estimated time required to make these modifications is about 1 hour per model. Each entity supplies an average of three different models of infant bath tubs; therefore, the estimated burden associated with labels is 1 hour per model × 26 entities × 3 models per entity = 78 hours. We estimate the hourly compensation for the time required to create and update labels is $30.19 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,” March 2015, Table 9, total compensation for all sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual cost to industry associated with the labeling requirements is $2,354.82 ($30.19 per hour × 78 hours = $2,354.82). No other operating, maintenance, or capital costs are associated with the collection.

    Section 9.1 of the infant bath tub standard requires instructions to be supplied with the product. Infant bath tubs are products that generally require use and/or assembly instructions. Under the OMB's regulations (5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the “normal course of their activities” are excluded from a burden estimate, where an agency demonstrates that the disclosure activities required to comply are “usual and customary.” We are unaware of infant bath tubs that generally require use instructions, but lack these instructions. Therefore, we tentatively estimate that there are no burden hours associated with section 9.1 of the infant bath tub standard, because any burden associated with supplying instructions with infant bath tubs would be “usual and customary” and not within the definition of “burden” under the OMB's regulations.

    Based on this analysis, the proposed standard for infant bath tubs would impose a burden to industry of 78 hours at a cost of $2,355 annually.

    In compliance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of this rule to the OMB for review. Interested persons are requested to submit comments regarding information collection by September 14, 2015, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice).

    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), we invite comments on:

    • Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the CPSC's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of the CPSC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    • Ways to reduce the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology; and

    • The estimated burden hours associated with label modification, including any alternative estimates.

    XIII. Preemption

    Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety rules.” Therefore, the preemption provision of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply to a rule issued under section 104.

    XIV. Request for Comments

    This NPR begins a rulemaking proceeding under section 104(b) of the CPSIA to issue a consumer product safety standard for infant bath tubs, and to amend part 1112 to add infant bath tubs to the list of children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued an NOR. We invite all interested persons to submit comments on any aspect of the proposed mandatory safety standard for infant bath tubs and on the proposed amendment to part 1112. Specifically, the Commission requests comments on the costs of compliance with, and testing to, the proposed mandatory infant bath tub standard, the proposed 6-month effective date for the new mandatory infant bath tub standard, and the amendment to part 1112.

    Comments should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.

    List of Subjects 16 CFR Part 1112

    Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third party conformity assessment body.

    16 CFR Part 1234

    Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, Toys.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES 1. The authority citation for part 1112 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Public Law 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063.

    2. Amend § 1112.15 by adding paragraph (b)(41) to read as follows:
    § 1112.15 When can a third party conformity assessment body apply for CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule and/or test method?

    (b) * * *

    (41) 16 CFR part 1234, Safety Standard for Infant Bath Tubs.

    3. Add part 1234 to read as follows: PART 1234—SAFETY STANDARD FOR INFANT BATH TUBS Sec. 1234.1 Scope. 1234.2 Requirements for infant bath tubs. Authority:

    Authority: Sec. 104, Public Law 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016.

    § 1234.1 Scope.

    This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for infant bath tubs.

    § 1234.2 Requirements for infant bath tubs.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each infant bath tub shall comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F2670-13, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Infant Bath Tubs, approved February 15, 2013. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://www.astm.org. You may inspect a copy at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    (b) Comply with ASTM F2670-13 with the following additions or exclusions:

    (1) Instead of complying with section 7.1.2 of ASTM F2670-13, comply with the following:

    (i) 7.1.2 Latching or Locking Mechanism Durability—The latching or locking mechanism(s) shall be cycled through its normal operation a total of 2000 cycles. Each cycle shall consist of opening and closing the mechanism and erecting/folding the product. Cycling shall be conducted on a continuous basis.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (2) Add as an Appendix to ASTM F2670-13, the following:

    (i) X1.2 Section 7.1.2—The timing of the durability cycling was revised so as to accommodate latching or locking mechanisms on some products that may require longer than 5 seconds to activate and deactivate. Continuous cycling is being prescribed to accommodate these potential longer activation/deactivation cycles, but the intent of the standard is to cycle the latching or locking mechanisms at a rate as close to 12 cycles per minute as can be reasonably achieved for the specific mechanism.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (3) Instead of complying with section 7.4.2 of ASTM F2670-13, comply with the following:

    (i) 7.4.2 Place a load on the center of the seating surface using a 6 to 8 in. (150 to 200mm) diameter bag filled with steel shot and which has a total weight of 50 lb (22.7kg) or three times the maximum weight of the child recommended by the manufacturer, whichever is greater, on the center of the product.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (4) Instead of complying with section 8.4 of ASTM F2670-13, including all subsections of section 8.4, comply with the following:

    (i) 8.4 Each product shall be labeled with warning statements. The warning statements shall be in contrasting color(s), permanent, conspicuous and in non-condensed sans serif typeface. All warning(s) shall be distinctively separated from any other wording or designs and shall appear in the English language at a minimum. The specified warning label may not be placed in a location that allows the warnings to be obscured or rendered inconspicuous when in the manufacturer's recommended use position.

    (A) 8.4.1 Warning Label Format—The safety alert symbol

    EP14AU15.089 and the word “WARNING,” shall be at least 0.4 in. (10 mm) high unless stated otherwise, shall be the same size, and shall be in bold capital letters. The remainder of the text shall be in characters whose upper case shall be at least 0.2 in. (5 mm) high unless stated otherwise. The safety alert symbol EP14AU15.089 and signal word “WARNING” shall be delineated with a bold solid line black border. The background color behind the safety alert symbol EP14AU15.089 and signal word “WARNING” shall be orange, red, or yellow, whichever provides best contrast against the product background. The remainder of the label text shall be black and in upper and lower case letters on a white background surrounded by a bold solid line black border. Text within the message panel shall be left-justified. Precautionary statements shall be indented from hazard statements and preceded by bullet points. Message panels within the label shall be delineated with solid black lines between sections addressing different hazards. If an outer border is used to surround the bold solid black lines of the label, the outer border shall be white and the corners may be radiused. An example label in the format described in this section is shown in Fig. 2.

    (B) 8.4.2 The following warning statement shall be included exactly as stated below:

    Drowning Hazard: Babies have drowned while using infant bath tubs.

    (C) 8.4.3 Additional warning statements shall address the following:

    Stay in arm's reach of your baby.

    Use in empty adult tub or sink.

    Keep drain open.

    (D) 8.4.4 The following warning statement shall be included exactly as stated below:

    Fall Hazard: Babies have suffered head injuries falling from infant tubs.

    (E) 8.4.5 Additional warning statements shall address the following:

    Use only [insert safe location(s), e.g., in adult tub, sink, or on floor; in adult tub or on floor)].

    Never lift or carry baby in tub.

    (F) 8.4.6 The drowning hazard warning statements and the fall hazard warning statements in 8.4.2 through 8.4.5 may be displayed on separate labels. If the fall hazard warning statements are displayed on a separate label, the label shall comply with the requirements of 8.4.1 except that the safety alert symbol

    EP14AU15.089 and the signal word “WARNING” shall be at least 0.2 in. (5 mm) in height and the remainder of the text shall be at least 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) in height. The fall hazard warning label shall not be displayed above or before the drowning hazard warning label.

    (G) 8.4.7 Products utilizing suction cups as an attachment mechanism to the support surface, and which are not intended by the manufacturer to be used on any type of slip-resistant surface, shall also include a warning to this effect. In addition, if there are other types of surfaces that the manufacturer does not intend the product be used on, then additional warning(s) shall be given regarding such surface(s). Such warning(s) shall use the signal word WARNING preceded by the safety alert symbol, and shall meet the requirements described in 8.4.1.

    (5) Instead of complying with section 8.5 of ASTM F2670-13, comply with the following:

    (i) 8.5 Each product's retail package shall be labeled on the principal display panel as specified in 8.4 except that the safety alert symbol

    EP14AU15.089 and the word “WARNING” shall be at least 0.2 in. (5 mm) high and the remainder of the text shall be in characters whose upper case shall be at least 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) high. The warnings and statements are not required on the retail package if they are on the product and visible in their entirety and are not concealed by the retail package. Cartons and other materials used exclusively for shipping the product are not considered retail packaging.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (6) Instead of complying with section 9 of ASTM F2670-13, including all subsections of section 9, comply with the following:

    (i) 9. Instructional Literature

    (A) 9.1 All products shall have instructional literature enclosed that explains the proper use of the product and that shall be easy to read and understand. Such literature shall include instructions for assembly, maintenance, cleaning, inspections, and limitations of the product, as well as the manufacturer's recommended use position(s).

    (B) 9.2 Warning Statements in Instructional Literature:

    (1) 9.2.1 Instructional literature shall include the warnings specified in 8.4.2 through 8.4.7. The phrase “To prevent drowning” shall be added before the bulleted statements in 8.4.3 and the phrase “To prevent falls” shall be added before the bulleted statements in 8.4.5.

    (2) 9.2.2 Warning statements in instructional literature shall also address the following:

    Babies can drown in as little as 1 inch of water. Use as little water as possible to bathe your baby.

    Never rely on a toddler or preschooler to help your baby or alert you to trouble. Babies have drowned even with other children in or near bath tub.

    (3) 9.2.3 Warning statements in instructional literature shall meet the requirements described in 8.4 except that the background and text in the signal word panel need not be in color, and the remaining text shall be in highly contrasting colors, (e.g., black text on white). An example label that meets the requirements is shown in Fig. 3.

    (C) 9.3 In addition to the warnings, the instructional literature shall emphasize and reinforce the safe practices stated in the warnings.

    (D) 9.4 Instructional literature shall also advise to test the temperature of the water in, or being put into, the infant bath tub prior to placing the infant into the product. Instructions shall also indicate that the typical water temperature for bathing a baby should be between 90 and 100 °F (32.2 and 37.8°C).

    (E) 9.5 Instructional literature shall instruct to discontinue the use of the product if it becomes damaged, broken, or disassembled.

    (F) 9.6 Instructional literature shall include the information as specified in 8.3.

    (G) 9.7 Warnings, statements, or graphic pictorials shall not indicate or imply that the infant may be left in the product without a caregiver in attendance.

    (7) Add the following Figure 2 to ASTM F2670-13:

    EP14AU15.076

    (8) Add the following Figure 3 to ASTM F2670-13:

    EP14AU15.077

    (9) Add the following Figure 4 to ASTM F2670-13:

    EP14AU15.078 BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    Dated: August 6, 2015. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19668 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0561] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Mack Cycle Escape to Miami Triathlon, Biscayne Bay; Miami, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on the waters of Biscayne Bay, east of Margaret Pace Park, Miami, Florida during the Mack Cycle Escape to Miami Triathlon on September 20, 2015. The temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the event. Non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone that encompasses the swim area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 31, 2015.

    Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Benjamin R. Colbert, Sector Miami Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone (305) 535-4317, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2015-0561 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0561) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Regulatory History and Information

    This is the first rule-making action in regards to this year's Mack Cyle Escape to Miami Triathlon event.

    C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States during the Mack Cycle Escape to Miami Triathlon.

    D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    On September 20, 2015, Life Time Fitness Triathlon Services, LLC is sponsoring the Mack Cycle Escape to Miami Triathlon. The event will be held on the waters of Biscayne Bay, east of Margaret Pace Park, Miami, Florida. Approximately 2,100 participants are expected to participate in the swim portion of this event.

    The proposed rule will establish a safety zone that will encompass certain waters of Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida. The safety zone will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. until 11 a.m. on September 20, 2015. The safety zone will establish an area around the swim portion of the event where non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring, or remaining within. Non-participant persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area by contacting the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at 305-535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will be enforced for only four and one half hours; (2) although non-participant persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) non-participant persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area during the enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

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

    This proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of Biscayne Bay encompassed within the safety zone from 6:30 a.m. until 11 a.m. on September 20, 2015. However, this safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only four and one half hours early on a Sunday when vessel traffic is low. Additionally, traffic would be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.

    For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this proposed rule does not have implications for federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard previously completed a Categorical Exclusion Determination for this temporary safety zone in 2013. The regulation for the 2013 occurrences is similar in all aspects to this year's regulation; therefore, the same Categorical Exclusion Determination is being referenced for this year's regulation. The Categorical Exclusion Determination is available in the docket folder for USCG-2013-0688 at www.regulations.gov. This proposed rule involves establishing a safety zone that will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. until 11 a.m. on September 20, 2015. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    F. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

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

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add a temporary § 165.T07-0561 to the undesignated center heading Seventh Coast Guard District to read as follows:
    § 165.T07-0561 Safety Zone; Mack Cycle Escape to Miami Triathlon, Biscayne Bay; Miami, FL.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is a safety zone. All waters of Biscayne Bay, east of Margaret Pace Park, Miami, FL encompassed within the following points: starting at point 1 in position 25°47′40″ N., 80°11′07″ W.; thence north to point 2 in position 25°48′12″ N., 80°11′07″ W.; thence east to point 3 in position 25°48′12″ N., 80°10′30″ W.; thence south to point 4 in position 25°47′40″ N., 80°10′30″ W.; thence west back to origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

    (b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Miami in the enforcement of the regulated area.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.

    (2) Non-participant persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within a regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at 305-535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within a regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.

    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Effective date. This rule is effective on September 20, 2015. This rule will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. until 11 a.m. on September 20, 2015.

    Dated: July 30, 2015. A.J. Gould, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20114 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0483] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Ironman 70.3 Miami; Miami, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the waters of Biscayne Bay, east of Bayfront Park, in Miami, Florida during the 2015 Ironman 70.3 Miami, a triathlon. The Ironman 70.3 Miami is scheduled to take place on October 25, 2015. Approximately 2,500 participants are anticipated to participate in the swim portion of the event. No spectators are expected to be present during the event. The safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the participants, participant vessels, and the general public during the event. Persons and vessels, except those participating in the event, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 28, 2015.

    Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer John K. Jennings, Sector Miami Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone (305) 535-4317, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Rich Walter, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2015-XXXX in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-XXXX) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Regulatory History and Information

    Previously, a rule regarding this maritime event was published in the Code of Federal Regulations at 33 CFR 165. No final rule has been published in regards to this event.

    C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Ironman 70.3 Miami.

    D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    On October 25, 2015, Miami Tri Events is sponsoring the Ironman 70.3, a triathlon. The swim portion of the event will be held on the waters of Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida. Approximately 2,500 participants are anticipated to participate in the event. No spectator vessels are expected during the event.

    The proposed rule will establish a safety zone that will encompass certain waters of Biscayne Bay located east of Bay Front Park, Miami, Florida. The safety zone will be enforced from 6 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on October 25, 2015. The safety zone will establish an area around the event where non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within. Non-participant persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone by contacting the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at 305-535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will be enforced for only four and one half hours; (2) although non-participant persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) non-participant persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area during the enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of Biscayne Bay encompassed within the safety zone from 3 p.m. until 6 p.m. on April 18, 2015. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the creation of a safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. Preliminary environmental analysis checklists supporting this determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

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

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add a temporary § 165.T07-0024 to the undesignated center heading Seventh Coast Guard District to read as follows:
    § 165.T07-0679 Safety Zone; Ironman 70.3 Miami, Biscayne Bay; Miami, FL.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is a safety zone. All waters of Biscayne Bay located east of Bayfront Park and encompassed within the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 25°46′44″ N., 080°10′59″ W.; thence southeast to Point 2 in position 25°46′24″ N., 080°10′44″ W.; thence southwest to Point 3 in position 25°46′18″ N., 080°11′05″ W.; thence north to Point 4 in position 25°46′33″ N., 080°11′05″ W.; thence northeast back to origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

    (b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Miami in the enforcement of the regulated area.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Non-participant persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.

    (2) Non-participant persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at 305-535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.

    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Effective date. This rule will be enforced from 6 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on October 25, 2015.

    Dated: July 30, 2015. A.J. Gould, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20111 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0330] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO); Concord, California AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is proposing revisions to the existing conditional security zone regulation currently in place in the navigable waters of Suisun Bay, California, near Concord, California around each of the three piers at the Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO), California (formerly United States Naval Weapons Center Concord, California). This proposed action is intended to clarify responsibilities and authorities for enforcement of the security zone.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 14, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 21, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of Docket Number USCG-2015-0330. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Open Docket Folder” on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number, using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Lieutenant Marcia Medina, Sector San Francisco, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (415) 399-7443, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port San Francisco DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register MOTCO Military Ocean Terminal Concord NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this notice of proposed rulemaking.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Open Docket Folder” on the line associated with this notice of proposed rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    We do not plan to hold a public meeting due to the nature of the existing security zone and the limited impact to the public. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please submit your request by August 21, 2015, and explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Regulatory History and Information

    On August 27, 1996, the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers published a final rule in the Federal Register (61 FR 43969) establishing a restricted area 1 around the MOTCO piers (33 CFR 334.1110). Although the restricted area prohibits public access to the piers at all times, it lacks a conditional boundary extension to be enforced during the presence of munitions laden vessels and/or military onload/offload activities. Prior to January 24, 2005, the Coast Guard would address this lack of a conditional boundary by publishing a temporary security zone of sufficient size in the area for each operation at MOTCO (see e.g., 68 FR 33382).

    1 A “restricted area” is defined in § 334.2 as “[a] defined water area for the purpose of prohibiting or limiting public access to the area. Restricted areas generally provide security for Government property and/or protection to the public from the risks of damage or injury arising from the Government's use of that area.”

    On January 24, 2005, to address this issue on a more permanent basis, the Coast Guard published a final rule in the Federal Register (70 FR 3299) establishing a conditional 500-yard security zone around MOTCO's piers to be enforced during military onload/offload operations (33 CFR 165.1199). The security zone provides necessary security for military operations by providing a standoff distance for blast and collision, a surveillance and detection perimeter, and a margin of response time for security personnel.

    C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish security zones. This authority is separate from the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers authority to provide appropriate security in defense of their waterfront facilities and for vessels moored thereto in accordance with the restricted area in 33 CFR 334.1110.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to advance the Coast Guard's efforts to thwart potential terrorist activity through security measures on U.S. ports and waterways.

    D. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    The current regulation at § 165.1199 contains several items that are the subject of the revisions proposed in this NPRM. The proposed revisions to § 165.1199 would clarify the regulations in a concise, understandable format.

    First, the Coast Guard proposes to revise § 165.1199(c) by clarifying the Coast Guard's enforcement role during active loading operations, and the ability of the COTP to designate other representatives as having authority to enforce the security zone. The Coast Guard proposes to replace the existing term “patrol personnel,” in favor of a more appropriate term, “designated representative,” which includes federal, state and local officials designated by the COTP. This revision would clarify that the COTP may designate law enforcement officials other than Coast Guard personnel to patrol and enforce the security zone.

    The Coast Guard also proposes to revise the security zone so that it is enforceable at any time a vessel loaded with munitions is present at a pier (in addition to during military onload/offload operations). Without this revision, the existing security zone is enforceable during military onload or offload operations only.

    Additionally, the Coast Guard proposes to remove the existing provision regarding “Local Notice to Mariners” as a means of notifying the public that the security zone will be enforced. The security concern related to providing advance notification of the presence of an explosive load at a military base outweighs the benefit of advance notice of the security zone. Instead, the Coast Guard would notify the public of security zone enforcement (and suspensions of enforcement) via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or actual notice on-scene during military onloads or offloads. This revision would better align the notification method of this security zone with the notification method for the existing safety zone in the area (see § 165.1198).

    Finally, in addition to the above revisions, the Coast Guard proposes to make minor technical editorial adjustments to § 165.1199 for ease of reading and comprehension.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    Security zone enforcement would be limited in duration, and limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this proposed rule would restrict access to the waters encompassed by the security zone, the effect of this proposed rule would not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or actual notice on-scene during military onloads or offloads. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

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

    This proposed rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. The security zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The security zone would be activated, and thus subject to patrol and enforcement, for a limited duration. When the security zone is activated, vessel traffic would be directed to pass safety around the security zone. The maritime public would be advised when transiting near the activated zone.

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

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

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

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a security zone of limited size and duration. This proposed rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Revise § 165.1199 to read as follows:
    § 165.1199 Security Zones; Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO), Concord, California.

    (a) Location. The security zone(s) reside(s) within the navigable waters of Suisun Bay, California, extending from the surface to the sea floor, within 500 yards of the three Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) piers in Concord, California.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, “designated representative” means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer or any Federal, state, or local law enforcement officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) to act on the COTP's behalf. The COTP's representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, a Federal, state, or local law enforcement vessel, or a location on shore.

    (c) Regulations. (1) The security zone(s) described in paragraph (a) of this section will be in force during active military onloading and/or offloading operations and at any time a vessel loaded with munitions is present at a pier.

    (2) When one or more piers are involved in onload or offload operations at the same time, there will be a 500-yard security zone for each involved pier.

    (3) Under the general regulations in subpart D of this part, entry into, transiting or anchoring within the security zone(s) described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited during times of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the security zone(s) during times of enforcement must contact the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-16 or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547 to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the security zone(s) must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative.

    (5) Upon being hailed by the COTP or designated representative by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel approaching the security zone(s) must proceed as directed to avoid entering the security zone(s).

    (d) Notice of enforcement or suspension of enforcement of security zone(s). During periods that one or more security zones are enforced, the COTP or a designated representative will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and/or notify mariners via actual notice on-scene. In addition, COTP maintains a telephone line that is maintained 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The public can contact COTP at (415) 399-3547 to obtain information concerning enforcement of this section. When the security zones are no longer needed, the COTP or designated representative will cease enforcement of the security zones. Upon suspension of enforcement, all persons and vessels are granted general permissions to enter, move within, and exit the security zones, but should remain cognizant of the applicable restricted area designated in 33 CFR 334.1110.

    Dated: July 1, 2015. Gregory G. Stump, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20110 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0454; FRL-9932-34-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Movement of the Northern Virginia Area From Virginia's Nonattainment Area List to Its Maintenance Area List AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of moving the localities of Northern Virginia from Virginia's regulatory list of nonattainment areas to its list of maintenance areas for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the Commonwealth's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing by September 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0454 by one of the following methods:

    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    B. Email: [email protected]

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0454, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division, Mail code 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0454. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maria A. Pino, (215) 814-2181, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: August 4, 2015. William C. Early, Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20022 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0394; FRL-9932-27-Region 7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and a Supplemental SIP for Relevant Iowa Laws and Regulations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Iowa for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Lead (Pb) addressing the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110, which requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the State's responsibilities under the CAA.

    EPA is also proposing to approve a supplemental revision for the SIP to include article 1, section 2 of the Iowa Constitution, and portions of the Iowa Code and the Iowa Administrative Code to codify the relevant state laws as applied to conflict of interest provisions.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0394, by one of the following methods:

    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    2. Email: [email protected].

    3. Mail: Heather Hamilton, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Air and Waste Management Division, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.

    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Heather Hamilton, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Air and Waste Management Division, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0394. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and should be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Heather Hamilton, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7039; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we refer to EPA. A detailed technical support document (TSD) is included in this rulemaking docket to address the following: A description of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure SIPs; the applicable elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2); EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions, and EPA's evaluation of how the Iowa addressed the relevant elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:

    I. What is being addressed in this document? II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? III. What action is EPA taking? I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is proposing to approve the two submissions from the State of Iowa: The infrastructure SIP submission (received November 4, 2011) from Iowa which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and the submission from Iowa (Received May 11, 2015, that codifies article 1, section 2, of the Iowa Constitution, as well as the relevant sections of the Iowa Code and the Iowa Administrative Code as they apply to conflict of interest provisions addressed in this action are referenced in the “EPA Approved Nonregulatory SIP Provisions” table accompanying this notice.

    A Technical Support Document is included as part of the docket to discuss the details of this proposal, including analysis of how the SIP meets the applicable 110 requirements for infrastructure SIPs including specifically section 128 and 110(a)(2)(E).

    II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this document, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the November 4, 2011, infrastructure SIP submission from Iowa which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve the May 11 2015 submission from Iowa that codifies article 1, section 2, of the Iowa Constitution, as well as the relevant sections of the Iowa Code and the Iowa Administrative Code as they apply to conflict of interest provisions. Details of these submissions are addressed in a Technical Support Document as part of the docket to discuss the proposal.

    Based upon review of the state's infrastructure SIP submissions and relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions or referenced in Iowa's SIP, EPA believes that Iowa's SIP will meet all applicable required elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

    Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

    • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

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

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

    Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 110 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Mark Hague, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

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

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart Q—Iowa 2. In § 52.820(e) the table is amended by adding new entries (40) and (41) in numerical order at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.820 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory SIP Provisions Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date EPA Approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * (40) Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements 2008 Lead NAAQS Statewide 11/4/2011 8/14/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable. (41) Section 128 Declaration: Conflicts of Interest Provisions; Statewide 5/1/15 8/14/2015 [Insert Federal Register citation] Constitution of the State of Iowa, Article 1, Section 2 This action addresses the following sections of the Constitution of the State of Iowa, Article 1, section 2. Iowa Code: 4.4.(5), 7E.4, Chapter 68B Iowa Code: 4.4.(5) 7E.4 Chapter 68B. Iowa Administrative Code:
  • 351 IAC 6.11
  • 351 IAC 6.14(2)
  • 351 IAC 6.19
  • 351 IAC 7.1-7.2
  • 567 IAC 1.11(1-9)
  • Iowa Administrative Code:
  • 351 IAC 6.11
  • 351 IAC 6.14(2)
  • 351 IAC 6.19
  • 351 IAC 7.1-7.2
  • 567 IAC 1.11(1-9).
  • [FR Doc. 2015-20029 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010; FRL-9932-36-Region 4] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland) Superfund Site (Site) located in Mobile County, Alabama, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by September 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010, by mail to Shelby Johnston, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shelby Johnston, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, 404-562-8287, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the “Rules and Regulations” Section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Site without prior Notice of Intent to Delete because we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the direct final Notice of Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this deletion action, we will not take further action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of Deletion, and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent to Delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: August 3, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20016 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration 49 CFR Part 670 [Docket No. FTA-2015-0009] RIN 2132-AB22 Public Transportation Safety Program AGENCY:

    Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Transit Administration seeks public comment on a proposed rule to establish a Public Transportation Safety Program to strengthen the safety of public transportation systems throughout the United States, based on the principles and practices of Safety Management Systems.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by October 13, 2015. Any comments filed after this deadline will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit your comments by only one of the following methods, identifying your submission by Docket Number FTA-2015-0009 or RIN number 2132-AB22.

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: Submit electronic comments and other data to http://www.regulations.gov.

    U.S. Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building, Ground Floor, at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, at (202) 493-2251.

    Instructions: You must include the agency name (Federal Transit Administration) and Docket Number FTA-2015-0009 for this notice or RIN 2132-AB22, at the beginning of your comments. If sent by mail, submit two copies of your comments. Due to security procedures in effect since October 2001, mail received through the U.S. Postal Service may be subject to delays. Parties submitting comments should consider using an express mail form to ensure their prompt filing of any submissions not filed electronically or by hand. If you wish to receive confirmation that FTA received your comments, you must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You may review U.S. DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000, at 65 FR 19477-8 or http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For program matters, contact Lynn Everett, Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, (202) 366-2410 or [email protected]. For legal matters, contact Candace Key, Office of Chief Counsel, (202)366-1936 or [email protected].

    Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of Regulatory Action B. Legal Authority C. Summary of Major Provisions D. Costs and Benefits II. The Public Transportation Safety Program A. Background B. The Relationship Between Safety and Transit Asset Management C. The State of Public Transportation Safety D. The Safety Management Systems (SMS) Approach E. Components of the Public Transportation Safety Program III. Benefit-Cost Analysis IV. Section-by-Section Analysis V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of Regulatory Action

    Every day, millions of passengers take some form of public transportation to get to or from work, shopping, classes, or other destinations. While the safety performance of the public transportation industry remains strong, recent accidents, including several investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), have demonstrated weaknesses in the safety performance of critical systems, equipment, procedures, management systems and oversight.

    In the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141 (2012)), Congress directed FTA to establish a comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program to strengthen the safety performance of the public transportation industry. 49 U.S.C. 5329. Today's NPRM carries out explicit statutory mandates to meet this objective. The proposed rule would adopt Safety Management Systems (SMS) as the basis for FTA's new Public Transportation Safety Program. To ensure consistency in the implementation of this new program, today's NPRM would establish the framework for the Secretary's authority, delegated to FTA Administrator,1 to monitor, oversee, and enforce safety in the public transportation industry.

    1 49 CFR 1.91(a).

    Today's NPRM also explains the relationship between the Public Transportation Safety Program and the National Public Transportation Safety Plan. The National Public Transportation Safety Plan (National Safety Plan) will be FTA's primary tool for communicating safety performance information and safety guidance to the public transportation industry. Although the National Safety Plan is not a rulemaking, it will be subject to public notice and comment.

    B. Legal Authority

    Under 49 U.S.C. 5329 (Section 5329), FTA is obliged to create a comprehensive program for safety in public transportation, comprised of a National Public Transportation Safety Plan; a training and certification program for Federal, State, and local transportation agency employees with safety oversight responsibilities; public transportation agency safety plans; a strengthened State Safety Oversight (SSO) program; and a new framework for Federal enforcement and investigative authorities to directly oversee the safety of the public transportation industry.

    In addition, Section 5329 incorporates certain principles and tools associated with SMS into FTA's regulatory framework for public transportation safety. For example, Section 5329 establishes a performance management framework that includes: the use of safety performance criteria and safety targets to monitor program implementation and effectiveness; requirements for executives and boards to be accountable to hire qualified safety managers as direct reports and, annually, to certify safety plans; and requirements for comprehensive staff safety training programs. Also, Section 5329 calls for the collection of information on safety risk management methods and safety assurance strategies to minimize the exposure of the public, transit agency personnel, and property to safety hazards and unsafe conditions.

    The statute also vests the Secretary of Transportation and his designee, the FTA Administrator, with explicit authorities to carry out the Public Transportation Safety Program and to take enforcement actions. For example, Section 5329(f) provides the Administrator with the authority to inspect and audit all public transportation systems; make reports and issue directives with respect to the safety of public transportation systems; issue subpoenas and take depositions; require the production of documents; prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements; investigate public transportation accidents and incidents; enter and inspect equipment, rolling stock, operations and relevant records; and issue regulations to carry out Section 5329. Section 5329(g) authorizes the Administrator to take enforcement actions against recipients that are noncompliant with Federal transit safety law. The Administrator may further issue directives, require more frequent oversight, impose more frequent reporting requirements, require that formula grant funds be spent to correct safety deficiencies before funds are spent on other projects, and withhold funds from a recipient.

    C. Summary of Major Provisions

    The proposed rule would add a new part 670, “Public Transportation Safety Program,” to title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The proposed rule includes the following elements: (1) Formal adoption of SMS as the foundation for FTA's safety oversight and regulatory approach; (2) procedures under the Administrator's authority to conduct inspections, investigations, audits, examinations, testing of equipment, facilities, rolling stock and operations of a public transportation system; (3) procedures under the Administrator's authority to take appropriate enforcement actions, including directing the use or withholding of funds, and issuing directives and advisories; and (4) describes statutory and proposed contents of the National Safety Plan.

    D. Costs and Benefits

    The proposed rule outlines FTA's authority to inspect, investigate, audit, examine and test transit agencies' facilities, equipment, safety processes and events as and when needed, direct or withhold Federal transit funds, and issue directives and advisories. FTA does not believe that the proposed rule imposes additional costs to entities other than FTA. FTA believes that costs to recipients associated with FTA's aforementioned authorities are captured in the rulemakings for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, State Safety Oversight, and the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program. FTA seeks comment on the cost assumptions herein.

    II. The Public Transportation Safety Program A. Background

    Historically, public transportation has been one of the safest means of transportation. Today, however, the transit industry is facing increased pressures at a time when ridership is growing, demand is increasing, infrastructure is aging, and large numbers of the workforce are retiring. Calendar year 2013 marked the highest ridership level for transit since 1956, with the number of trips exceeding 10 billion for the seventh year in a row—and there is reason to believe that this is the beginning of a sustained period of growing demand for public transportation.2

    22013 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2013cpr/overviews.htm#2t.

    In recent years, the U.S. DOT, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), and FTA have conducted a number of studies, audits, and reviews highlighting these challenges and their potential impacts on safety and the reliability of public transportation operations. Most notably, in two different reviews,3 the GAO has documented weaknesses in Federal authority, training, and funding for the State Safety Oversight (SSO) program. These limitations have impacted the ability of FTA and the State Safety Oversight Agencies (SSOA) to address the safety consequences of aging infrastructure, budgetary restrictions, and rapidly growing ridership on rail transit systems.

    3 The GAO report Rail Transit: Observations on FTA's State Safety Oversight Program and Potential Change in its Oversight Role, December 10, 2009 is available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/123884.pdf. The GAO Report Public Transit: Federal and Transit Agencies Taking Steps to Build Transit Resilience, but Face Challenges, December 10, 2014 is available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/667391.pdf.

    To help inform FTA in developing a strategic regulatory approach to implementing the new requirements of MAP-21, FTA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), addressing new requirements for both transit asset management and safety. 78 FR 61251 (October 3, 2013).4 The ANPRM sought comments on 123 questions related to FTA's initial ideas for how to implement the requirements of Sections 5326 and 5329, our understanding of the nexus between safety, transit asset management, and state of good repair, and FTA's initial concept for applying SMS to the transit industry. FTA will respond to the comments received on the ANPRM in the respective rulemakings for each topic and the National Public Transportation Safety Plan.

    4 The ANPRM is available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-03/pdf/2013-23921.pdf.).

    B. The Relationship Between Safety and Transit Asset Management

    Since the mid-2000s, FTA safety studies and audits have documented how dramatically increasing ridership leads to greater operational and maintenance demands on public transportation systems which can have safety impacts, if not managed vigilantly. FTA's research has shown that the safety and performance of a public transportation system depends, in part, on the condition of its assets. Insufficient funding combined with inadequate asset management practices have contributed to an estimated $85.9 billion transit state of good repair (SGR) backlog.5 The public transportation industry does not have these funds currently available, nor can it address annual expenditures of over $2.5 billion required to prevent the SGR backlog from growing. As a result, many transit agencies are struggling to balance requirements for service with maintenance and safety.

    52013 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2013cpr/overviews.htm#2t.

    It must be emphasized that, in enacting MAP-21, Congress recognized the critical relationship between safety and transit asset management.6 We note, in particular, the congressional direction that the National Public Transportation Safety Plan include the definition of state of good repair set in the rulemaking for asset management (49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(2)(B)). Furthermore, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(E), transit agencies must set safety performance targets for state of good repair based on the state of good repair standards established under the National Public Transportation Safety Plan.

    6 For a thorough history of the events and circumstances leading to the enactment of the broad safety authority now vested in FTA through the enactment of MAP-21, readers should please review the preamble to FTA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for State Safety Oversight (SSO) issued on February 27, 2015. 80 FR 11002-30. The NPRM for State Safety Oversight also explains the context for FTA's introduction of Safety Management Systems to public transportation.

    C. The State of Public Transportation Safety

    The October 2013 ANPRM included a discussion of major findings and considerations resulting from several high-profile accidents. Since the publication of the ANPRM, there have been four additional public transportation safety accidents of particular note that continue to highlight the need for comprehensive Federal oversight of public transportation safety. Following is a brief overview of these accidents:

    • On September 30, 2013, an unoccupied Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) train consisting of four cars collided with a CTA train in revenue service that was stopped at the Harlem Station on the Blue Line. There were approximately 40 passengers on the in-service CTA train. CTA reported that 33 passengers were transported to three local hospitals. There were no fatalities.

    • Shortly after midnight on October 6, 2013, in a work zone on the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's Red Line underground track, contractors and WMATA employees were performing rail renewal, a process that involves removing old sections of rail, installing new sections of rail and related activity such as welding and grinding. A fire and loud noise occurred during flash butt welding operations. Workers using a handheld extinguisher put the fire out but the smoke forced an evacuation from the work zone. During the evacuation, a 40-foot piece of rail came loose from the equipment that was supporting it, and struck three evacuating workers, killing a contractor and seriously injuring two WMATA employees.

    • On October 19, 2013, two Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) workers were struck and killed by a train while inspecting track. This accident occurred during a strike when BART was not providing passenger service but non-revenue train movements were occurring on the system. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB),7 at the time of the accident, a trainee was operating the BART train under the supervision of a training supervisor. The train was traveling at least 60 mph before the collision. The workers accessed the rail right-of-way (ROW) under a standard procedure known as “simple approval,” which required workers to notify BART's operations control center when they planned to work on or near the tracks. There were no other protections in place to safeguard the workers. As a result of preliminary findings from this investigation, the California Public Utilities Commission issued General Order 175, which contains new standards for Roadway Worker Protection programs at rail transit agencies in California.

    7 NTSB Railroad Accident Brief “Bay Area Rapid Transit Train 963 Struck Roadway Workers,” April 13, 2015, available at http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/RAB1503.pdf.

    • On January 12, 2015, a Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Metrorail train stopped after encountering an accumulation of heavy smoke while traveling southbound in a tunnel between the L'Enfant Plaza Station and the Potomac River Bridge. After stopping, the rear car of the train was about 386 feet from the south end of the L'Enfant Plaza Station platform. A following train, stopped at the L'Enfant Plaza Station at about 3:25 p.m., was also affected by the heavy smoke. This train stopped about 100 feet short of the south end of the platform. Passengers on both trains, as well as passengers on the station platforms, were exposed to the heavy smoke. As a result of the smoke, 86 passengers were transported to local medical facilities for treatment. There was one passenger fatality. Initial reports suggest that electric arcing caused by the subpar condition of insulators within the Metrorail system may have contributed to the fire.

    FTA has used its expanded authority at 49 U.S.C. 5329(f) to address some of the underlying causes of each of these incidents. For example, on October 4, 2013, FTA issued a safety advisory following the CTA unoccupied train incident, requesting that rail transit operators immediately review their operating practices and attend to the NTSB's recommendation to utilize redundant train stopping mechanisms such as wheel chocks and/or derails. In a second advisory, issued June 12, 2014, FTA alerted rail transit operators of the need to assess the adequacy of safe stopping distances for rail transit in emergency braking in terminal stations. The advisory also requested action from SSOAs designated to implement FTA's SSO program as specified by 49 CFR part 659 and 49 U.S.C. 5329(e).8

    8 Both the NTSB recommendation and FTA's advisories are available on FTA's Web site here http://www.fta.dot.gov/newsroom/12910_15703.html.

    FTA issued another advisory in December 2013, following the WMATA and BART incidents that resulted in the deaths of ROW workers. As recommended by the NTSB, FTA Safety Advisory 14-1 requested that SSOAs (1) inventory the current practices of the rail transit operators that they oversaw and (2) conduct a hazard analysis on workers' access to the ROW and how the protections identified in the inventory addressed the consequences associated with each hazard. 9

    9Ibid.

    In addition, FTA partnered with CTA for a safety examination to support CTA in strengthening its safety programs and capabilities through the implementation of Safety Management Systems (SMS). The outcomes of this activity will be a roadmap for CTA SMS implementation and an enhanced safety profile throughout the agency.

    More recently, following the WMATA incident of January 12, 2015, FTA became a party to the NTSB investigation into the causal factors contributing to the incident. Information collected through the investigation has revealed that factors contributing to the incident included equipment malfunctions, communications failures, and human factors, all of which consistently have been identified as the contributing factors to previous public transportation incidents.

    Moreover, FTA used its new authority under 5329(f)(1) to conduct a Safety Management Inspection (SMI) of WMATA's transit system. The SMI involved the following components:

    • An SMS gap analysis, including SMS training across several levels of WMATA;

    • A rail safety inspection, whereby FTA conducted an evaluation of WMATA's rail operations and maintenance programs to acquire the safety information and data needed to support meaningful analysis of safety risks; and

    • A bus safety assessment, conducted in a similar manner to the rail safety assessment.

    At the conclusion of the inspection, on June 17, 2015, FTA issued an SMI Final Report which included findings and recommendations, as well as results of the SMS Gap Analysis, to assist WMATA in building a mature and effective SMS. FTA also issued both safety directive 15-1 requiring WMATA to address findings documented in FTA's Safety Management Inspection SMI report and safety advisory 15-1 to inform rail transit agencies of planned audits to be conducted by State Safety Oversight Agencies of the agencies' tunnels, emergency procedures, and compliance with industry standards for maintenance and emergency procedures.10

    10 For more information on FTA's Safety Management Inspection and report, safety directive 15-1, and safety advisory 15-1 please visit FTA's Web site at http://www.fta.dot.gov/tso_16476.html.

    This NPRM will further define FTA's enforcement authority and provide the procedural framework to support it, including proposing due process mechanisms, where relevant.

    D. The Safety Management Systems (SMS) Approach

    FTA has adopted the principles and methods of SMS as the basis for the Public Transportation Safety Program. SMS is a management approach that ensures each public transportation agency, no matter its size or service environment, has the necessary organizational structures, accountabilities, activities and tools in place to direct and control resources to optimally manage safety. SMS is a formal, top-down, organization-wide approach to managing safety risks and assuring the effectiveness of safety risk mitigations.

    Over the last decade, SMS has been used in space, chemical, aviation and other industries, both domestic and internationally, and by for-profit and non-profit transportation providers, large and small. Both the NTSB and the National Safety Council (NSC) endorse the principles and methods of SMS.11 Moreover, other DOT modal administrations, including the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration, have incorporated or intend to incorporate SMS into their regulatory frameworks. Indeed, the NTSB characterizes SMS as a “Most Wanted” practice for public transportation, largely because of the inherent flexibility of SMS, and its proven effectiveness across a range of organizations that operate under different business models, in differing physical and financial environments.

    11 See, for example, the NTSB document at http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl-3.html and the NSC documents at http://www.nsc.org/get_involved/disvisions/Documents/SMS%20Policy-PostionStment%20final%20-%20Formatted.pdf.

    SMS ensures that information is provided to transit agency management so that resources can be strategically allocated to manage safety risk in a timely manner. SMS establishes lines of safety accountability throughout an organization, starting at the executive management level, and provides a structure to support a sound safety culture. SMS enables agencies to address organizational deficiencies that may lead to safety issues or unidentified safety risks, identify system-wide trends in safety, and manage the potential consequences of hazards before they result in incidents or accidents.12 FTA will propose requirements for the implementation of SMS at transit agencies as part of the NPRM developed to address Section 5329(d) requirements for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, which FTA plans to publish later this year.

    12 FTA's SMS Web site, available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/tso_15176.html, provides additional detail regarding FTA's proposed SMS framework.

    E. Components of the Public Transportation Safety Program

    The Public Transportation Safety Program, codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329, includes the following components: (1) The National Public Transportation Safety Plan, 49 U.S.C. 5329(b); (2) the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program, 49 U.S.C. 5329(b)(1)(D) and 5329(c); (3) the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, 49 U.S.C. 5329(d); (4) the State Safety Oversight (SSO) Program, 49 U.S.C. 5329(e); (5) the Authority of the Secretary, 49 U.S.C. 5329(f); and (6) Enforcement Actions, 49 U.S.C. 5329(g). FTA is issuing separate rules for the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program, the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and the SSO Program, and is also issuing a proposed National Public Transportation Safety Plan.

    In addition, FTA will soon issue a Transit Asset Management NPRM and an update to the Statewide and Metropolitan Planning regulations 13 that require consideration of transit safety performance criteria. Safety performance criteria and standards developed to address 49 U.S.C. 5329 requirements will be incorporated in the National Public Transportation Safety Plan, and must be considered during the transportation investment decision-making process.

    13 The Joint Planning NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2014 and is available on FTA's Web site at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-02/pdf/2014-12155.pdf.

    This NPRM for the Public Transportation Safety Program would establish a regulatory, enforcement, and programmatic framework to ensure consistency across these disparate, yet interrelated rules and requirements. To that end, the Public Transportation Safety Program proposes to formally adopt the principles and methods of SMS across all Section 5329 safety programs. This NPRM also outlines FTA's authorities to conduct reviews, audits, investigations, examinations, inspections and testing, and to issue findings and directives which would require specific corrective action from a single public transportation agency, a select group of recipients, or from all recipients. In the event corrective actions required by FTA are not implemented, Section 5329 provides FTA with a set of options for withholding or re-directing Federal funds, requiring additional oversight and monitoring, or partnering with the State or SSO agency to conduct further investigations or inspection. The NPRM proposes to adopt mechanisms to ensure that recipients that may be impacted by an FTA enforcement action are afforded sufficient due process, where relevant.

    This proposed rule also describes statutorily required and proposed contents of the National Safety Plan. The National Safety Plan will be FTA's primary tool for communicating with the transit industry about its safety performance. The National Safety Plan would serve as a critical linchpin, connecting FTA's regulatory programs, enforcement and rulemaking priorities, and safety performance measurement and monitoring activities. The National Safety Plan would establish, communicate, and align public transportation safety priorities based on analysis of available safety information, recommendations from the NTSB, and regulatory and enforcement areas of focus. FTA would use the National Safety Plan to set national criteria for safety performance, to communicate mitigation strategies to the public transportation industry and State safety oversight agencies, and to provide guidance, technical assistance and other tools.

    FTA intends for the National Safety Plan to be updated periodically to reflect new safety-related research and information, communicate best practices and emerging safety standards as they become available, and identify areas of focus for rulemaking and enforcement. FTA would use each plan update to report on the status of the public transportation industry towards meeting the national safety performance targets, and the transit industry's progress toward building SMS practices and improving safety outcomes.

    III. Benefit-Cost Analysis

    The proposed rule outlines FTA's authority to inspect, investigate, audit, exam and test transit agencies' facilities, equipment, safety processes and events as and when needed, direct or withhold Federal transit funds, and issue directives and advisories. The proposed rule does not include any uncounted costs. Costs associated with FTA's aforementioned authorities are captured in the rulemakings for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, State Safety Oversight, and the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program.

    IV. Section-by-Section Analysis

    FTA is proposing to amend chapter 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new part 670 establishing a Public Transportation Safety Program. The following is a section-by-section analysis of each proposal in this rulemaking.

    670.1 Purpose and Applicability

    This section proposes that the purpose of these regulations would be to establish a Public Transportation Safety Program. This part applies to all recipients of Federal transit funds.

    670.3 Policy

    This section proposes the formal adoption of Safety Management Systems (SMS) as the basis for enhancing the safety of public transportation in the United States. This section proposes that all aspects of the Public Transportation Safety Program administered under FTA's safety authority would follow the principles and methods of SMS.

    670.5 Definitions

    This section includes proposed definitions for terms that would be applicable to the Public Transportation Safety Program, including: advisory, audit, corrective action plan, directive, examination, inspection, investigation, National Public Transportation Safety Plan, pattern or practice, recipient, record, Safety Management System, and State Safety Oversight Agency.

    670.11 Inspections, Investigations, Audits, Examinations, and Testing

    This section sets forth FTA's statutory authority to conduct inspections, investigations, audits, examinations, and testing. This section proposes procedures for notifying a recipient or State of FTA's intent to engage in any of these activities, including information requested and the reason for the request. This section also proposes to establish the timeframe for response to such a request.

    This section proposes that the Administrator, upon written notice, and within a reasonable time and manner as determined by the Administrator, may enter the premises occupied by a recipient and inspect and test a recipient's equipment, facilities, rolling stock, operations, and relevant records. FTA seeks comment on how it should define “reasonable time” and “reasonable manner” for the purpose of entering and inspecting equipment, facilities, rolling stock, operations and relevant records.

    670.13 Request for Confidential Treatment

    This section proposes procedures for a recipient or State to seek confidential treatment of records obtained during the course of activities under section 670.21. This section governs the procedures for requesting confidential treatment of any record filed with or otherwise provided to FTA in connection with its enforcement of statutes or regulations related to safety in public transportation.

    670.21 General

    This section would set forth the Administrator's enforcement authority.

    670.23 Use or Withholding of Funds

    This section proposes procedures for FTA to direct the use of Chapter 53 funds where deficiencies are identified by the Administrator or a State Safety Oversight Agency. This section also proposes procedures for withholding of Chapter 53 funds from a recipient or State for non-compliance where the Administrator determines that there has been a pattern or practice of serious violations of the Public Transportation Safety Program and any regulation or directive issued under those laws for which the Administrator exercises enforcement authority for safety.

    670.25 General Directives

    This section proposes procedures for the issuance of a general directive by the Administrator. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(f)(2), the Secretary may “issue directives with respect to the safety of the public transportation system of a recipient.” FTA has interpreted this authority to include directives issued to all or a subset of the transit industry.

    As a general matter, use of the singular includes the plural. See e.g., the Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C. 1 (“unless the context indicates otherwise . . . words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things; words importing the plural include the singular”). In addition, FTA's interpretation is consistent with the purpose of section 5329 to improve the safety of the entire public transportation industry. Furthermore, the legislative history of section 5329 supports this reading. The Senate report accompanying the Public Transportation Safety Act of 2010 (S. 3638, 111th Cong. (2010)), which laid the foundation for the general safety and State Safety Oversight provisions eventually enacted under MAP-21, states: “Subsection (f) provides the Secretary with the authority . . . to make reports and issue directives with respect to the safety of public transportation systems.” 14

    14 S. Rept. 111-232; 111th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2010) available at https://www.congress.gov/111/crpt/srpt232/CRPT-111srpt232.pdf.

    Accordingly, as proposed, FTA could issue a general directive that applied to all recipients or a subset of recipients and the directive would be effective upon notice provided by the Administrator in the Federal Register. For example, both a general directive that applied to all Chapter 53 recipients and a general directive that applied to all recipients that operate rail fixed guideway public transportation systems would be published in the Federal Register. A general directive would be subject to a public comment period. Following the public notice and comment period, FTA would publish a response to the comments in the Federal Register. The response also would include a final iteration of the general directive. Note also that the use of general directives would be generally limited to circumstances where there is an “emergency situation,” in contrast to the use of special directives issued to specific named recipients.

    670.27 Special Directives

    This section proposes that the Administrator provide direct notice to a named recipient for a special directive that is not generally applicable, but only applies to one or more named recipients. A special directive issued to a named recipient would be based on particular facts unique to the recipient. A named recipient would have an opportunity to petition the Administrator for review of the directive. The Chief Counsel of FTA would either grant or deny a petition, in whole or in part.

    670.29 Advisories

    This section proposes that the Administrator may issue advisories which may recommend corrective actions, inspections, conditions, limitations, or other actions to resolve or mitigate an unsafe condition.

    670.31 Purpose and Content of the National Public Transportation Safety Plan

    This section describes the statutory and proposed components of the National Public Transportation Safety Plan, which FTA will revise periodically. The statutory components include the definition of state of good repair established under FTA's transit asset management rule, the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program established through rulemaking, safety performance criteria for all modes of public transportation, and minimum safety performance standards for vehicles used in revenue operations not otherwise regulated by another Federal agency.

    V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices Executive Order 12866 and 13563; USDOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits—including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Also, Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. FTA is also required under 49 U.S.C. 5329(h) to take into consideration the costs and benefits of each action the Secretary proposes to take under section 5329. As stated in section I.D. above, FTA believes this proposed rule does not impose costs on entities other than FTA.

    FTA has determined this rulemaking is a nonsignificant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and is nonsignificant within the meaning of the U.S. Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. FTA has determined that this rulemaking is not economically significant. The proposals set forth in this NPRM will not result in an effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The proposals set forth in the NPRM will not adversely affect the economy, interfere with actions taken or planned by other agencies, or generally alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354; 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FTA has evaluated the likely effects of the proposals set forth in this NPRM on small entities, and has determined that they will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rulemaking would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48).

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This proposed rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria established by Executive Order 13132, and FTA has determined that the proposed action would not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. FTA has also determined that this proposed action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' abilities to discharge traditional State governmental functions. Moreover, consistent with Executive Order 13132, FTA has examined the direct compliance costs of the NPRM on State and local governments and has determined that the collection and analysis of the data are eligible for Federal funding under FTA's grant programs.

    Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations effectuating Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this proposed rulemaking.

    Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This rulemaking will not impose additional collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; “PRA”) and the OMB regulation at 5 CFR 1320.8(d). To the extent that there are any costs and burdens associated with any collections under this rule, the information collection will be incorporated into the requests for the rulemakings for Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans, State Safety Oversight, and the Safety Certification Training Program.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to analyze the potential environmental effects of their proposed actions in the form of a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement. This proposed rulemaking is categorically excluded under FTA's environmental impact procedure at 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20), pertaining to planning and administrative activities that do not involve or lead directly to construction, such as the promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives. FTA has determined that no unusual circumstances exist in this instance, and that a categorical exclusion is appropriate for this rulemaking.

    Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This rulemaking will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (March 15, 1998), Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations)

    Executive Order 12898 (February 8, 1994) directs every Federal agency to make environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing the effects of all programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The USDOT environmental justice initiatives accomplish this goal by involving the potentially affected public in developing transportation projects that fit harmoniously within their communities without compromising safety or mobility. Additionally, FTA has issued a program circular addressing environmental justice in public transportation, C 4703.1, “Environmental Justice Policy Guidance for Federal Transit Administration Recipients.” This circular provides a framework for FTA grantees as they integrate principles of environmental justice into their transit decision-making processes. The Circular includes recommendations for State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and public transportation systems on how to: (1) To fully engage environmental justice populations in the transportation decision-making process; (2) determine whether environmental justice populations would be subjected to disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of a public transportation project, policy, or activity; and (3) avoid, minimize, or mitigate these effects.

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets the applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FTA has analyzed this proposed rulemaking under Executive Order 13045 (April 21, 1997), Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FTA certifies that this proposed rule will not cause an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    FTA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000), and believes that it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal laws. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

    Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FTA has analyzed this proposed rulemaking under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). FTA has determined that this action is not a significant energy action under the Executive Order, given that the action is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not requirement.

    Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of FTA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment or signing the comment if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or any other entity. You may review USDOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000, at 65 FR 19477-8.

    Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is issued under the authority of Section 20021 of MAP-21, which authorizes the Secretary to issue rules to carry out the mandate for a Public Transportation Safety Program at 49 U.S.C. 5329. The authority is codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329(f)(7).

    Regulation Identification Number

    A Regulation Identification Number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN set forth in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 670

    Public transportation, Safety.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.91. Matthew J. Welbes, Executive Director.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329(f), and the delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.91, FTA hereby proposes to amend chapter VI of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 670 as set forth below:

    PART 670—PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SAFETY PROGRAM Subpart A—General Provisions Sec. 670.1 Purpose and applicability. 670.3 Policy. 670.5 Definitions. Subpart B—Compliance Assessments 670.11 Inspections, investigations, audits, examinations, and testing. 670.13 Request for confidential treatment of records. Subpart C—Enforcement 670.21 General. 670.23 Use or withholding of funds. 670.25 General directives. 670.27 Special directives. 670.29 Advisories. Subpart D—National Public Transportation Safety Plan 670.31 Purpose and contents of the national public transportation safety plan. Subpart A—General Provisions
    § 670.1 Purpose and applicability.

    This part carries out the mandate of 49 U.S.C. 5329 to improve the safety of public transportation systems. This part applies to recipients of Federal transit funds.

    § 670.3 Policy.

    The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has adopted the principles and methods of Safety Management Systems (SMS) as the basis for enhancing the safety of public transportation in the United States. All rules, regulations, policies, guidance, best practices, and technical assistance administered under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329 will follow the principles and methods of SMS.

    § 670.5 Definitions.

    As used in this part:

    Accountable Executive means a single, identifiable person who has ultimate responsibility for carrying out the Safety Management System of a public transportation agency; responsibility for carrying out the agency's Transit Asset Management Plan; and control or direction over the human and capital resources needed to develop and maintain both the agency's Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), and the agency's Transit Asset Management Plan in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5326.

    Administrator means the Federal Transit Administrator or his or her designee.

    Advisory means a notice from FTA to recipients regarding an existing or potential hazard or risk in public transportation that recommends recipients take a particular action to mitigate the hazard or risk.

    Audit means an examination of records and related materials, including, but not limited to, those related to financial accounts.

    Corrective action plan means a plan developed by a recipient that describes the actions the recipient will take to minimize, control, correct, or eliminate risks and hazards, and the schedule for taking those actions. Either a State Safety Oversight Agency or FTA may require a recipient to develop and carry out a corrective action plan.

    Directive means a formal written communication from FTA to one or more recipients which orders a recipient to take specific actions to ensure the safety of a public transportation system.

    Examination means a process for gathering facts or information, or an analysis of facts or information previously collected.

    FTA means the Federal Transit Administration, an operating administration within the United States Department of Transportation.

    Inspection means a process for gathering facts or information, or an analysis of facts or information previously collected. At the conclusion of an inspection, FTA may issue findings and recommendations.

    Investigation means the process of determining the causal and contributing factors of an event for the purpose of mitigating safety risk or preventing recurrence.

    National Public Transportation Safety Plan means the plan to improve the safety of all public transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, and authorized at 49 U.S.C. 5329.

    Pattern or practice means two or more findings by FTA of a recipient's noncompliance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329 and the regulations thereunder.

    Recipient means an entity that receives Federal financial assistance under Chapter 53.

    Record means any writing, drawing, map, recording, tape, film, photograph, or other documentary material by which information is preserved. The term “record” also includes any such documentary material stored electronically.

    Safety Management System (SMS) means the formal, top-down, organization-wide data-driven approach to managing safety risk and assuring the effectiveness of safety risk mitigations. SMS includes policies, procedures, and practices for the management of safety risk.

    State means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands, or a State agency.

    State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) means an agency established by a State that meets the requirements and performs the functions specified by 49 U.S.C. 5329(e) and the regulations codified at 49 CFR part 674.

    Testing means an assessment of equipment, facilities, rolling stock, and operations of a recipient's public transportation system.

    Subpart B—Compliance Assessments
    § 670.11 Inspections, investigations, audits, examinations, and testing.

    (a) The Administrator may conduct investigations, inspections, audits, and examinations, and test the equipment, facilities, rolling stock, and operations of public transportation systems operated by a recipient.

    (b) In carrying out this section—

    (1) The Administrator may require the production of relevant documents and records, take evidence, issue subpoenas and depositions, and prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    (2) The Administrator will provide the recipient with written notice that includes the information requested and the reasons for each request.

    (3) Within thirty (30) days of service of a notice, a recipient shall comply with the Administrator's request or provide a written explanation for any delay or failure to provide the requested information.

    (4) Upon written notice, and within a reasonable time and manner as determined by the Administrator, the Administrator may enter the premises occupied by a recipient and inspect and test a recipient's equipment, facilities, rolling stock, operations, and relevant records.

    § 670.13 Request for confidential treatment of records.

    (a) The Administrator may grant a recipient's request for confidential treatment of records on the basis that the records are—

    (1) Exempt from the mandatory disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552);

    (2) Required to be held in confidence by 18 U.S.C. 1905; or

    (3) Otherwise exempt from public disclosure.

    (b) Any record containing information for which confidential treatment is requested must be submitted with the request for confidential treatment. The request must include a statement justifying nondisclosure and provide the specific legal basis upon which the request for nondisclosure should be granted.

    (c) Any record containing any information for which confidential treatment is requested must be marked “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” in bold letters.

    (d) The accompanying statement of justification must indicate whether confidentiality is requested as to the entire record, or whether nonconfidential information in the record cannot be reasonably segregated from confidential information.

    (1) If confidentiality is requested as to only a portion of the record, the person filing the record must file a copy of the record and a second copy of the document where the purportedly confidential information has been redacted.

    (2) If the person filing a record, of which only a portion is requested to be held in confidence, does not submit a second copy of the record with the confidential information redacted at the time he or she files the record, the Administrator may assume there is no objection to public disclosure of the record in its entirety.

    (e) The Administrator retains the right to make his or her own determination with regard to any request for confidentiality. Notice of a decision by the Administrator to deny a request, in whole or in part, and an opportunity to respond will be given to a person requesting confidential treatment of information no less than five (5) days prior to its public disclosure.

    Subpart C—Enforcement
    § 670.21 General.

    In exercising authority under this part, the Administrator may—

    (a) Require more frequent oversight of a recipient by a State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) that has jurisdiction over the recipient;

    (b) Impose requirements for more frequent reporting by a recipient;

    (c) Require that a recipient expend Federal financial assistance for correcting safety deficiencies identified by the Administrator or an SSOA, if the Administrator finds a recipient is or has been engaged in a pattern or practice of serious safety violations or refused to comply with the requirements of this part or any regulation or directive issued under those laws for which the Administrator exercises enforcement authority for safety;

    (d) Order a recipient to develop and carry out a corrective action plan;

    (e) Withhold Federal financial assistance in whole or in part as deemed appropriate by the Administrator, upon notice in accordance with section 670.23 of this part; and

    (f) Make reports and issue safety directives and safety advisories.

    § 670.23 Use or withholding of funds.

    (a) Use of funds. The Administrator may require a recipient to use Chapter 53 funds to correct safety deficiencies identified by the Administrator or an SSOA before such funds are used for any other purpose.

    (b) Withholding of funds. The Administrator may withhold funds from a recipient when the Administrator has evidence that the recipient has engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct in violation of the Public Transportation Safety Program or any regulation or directive issued under those laws for which the Administrator exercises enforcement authority for safety.

    (1) Notice. The Administrator will issue a notice of violation and the amount proposed to be withheld at least ninety (90) days prior to the date from when the funds will be withheld. The notice must contain—

    (i) A statement of the legal authority for issuance;

    (ii) A statement of the regulatory provision(s) or directive(s) the recipient or State is believed to have violated;

    (iii) A statement of the factual allegations upon which the remedial action is being sought; and

    (iv) A statement of the remedial action sought to correct the deficiency.

    (2) Reply. Within thirty (30) days of service of a notice of violation, a recipient may file a written reply with the Administrator. Upon written request, the Administrator may extend the time for filing for good cause shown. The reply must be in writing, and signed by the Accountable Executive or equivalent entity. A written response may include an explanation for the alleged violation, provide relevant information or materials in response to the alleged violation or in mitigation thereof, or recommend alternative means of compliance for consideration by the Administrator.

    (3) Decision. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a reply from a named recipient, the Administrator will issue a written reply to a recipient. The Administrator may consider the recipient's response, pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, in determining whether to dismiss the notice of violation in whole or in part. If the notice of violation is not dismissed, the Administrator may undertake any other enforcement action he or she deems appropriate, including withholding funds as stated in the notice of violation.

    § 670.25 General directives.

    (a) General. The Administrator may issue a general directive under this part that is applicable to all recipients or a subset of recipients, for either of the following reasons—

    (1) The Administrator determines that an unsafe condition or practice, or a combination of unsafe conditions and practices, causes an emergency situation involving a hazard of death, personal injury, damage to property or equipment, or significant harm to the environment; or

    (2) For any other purpose where the Administrator determines that the public interest requires the avoidance or mitigation of a hazard or risk through immediate compliance.

    (b) Effective date. A general directive is effective upon notice provided by the Administrator under paragraph (c) of this section.

    (c) Notice. The Administrator will provide notice to recipients of a general directive in the Federal Register. The notice will include, at minimum—

    (1) A reference to the authority under which the directive is being issued;

    (2) A statement of the purpose of the issuance of the directive, including a description of the subjects or issues involved and a statement of the remedial actions sought; and

    (3) A statement of the time within which written comments must be received.

    (d) Consideration of comments received. The Administrator will consider all timely comments received. Late filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

    (e) Final notice. After consideration of timely comments received, the Administrator will publish a notice in the Federal Register that includes both a response to comments and a final general directive or statement rescinding, revoking, or suspending the directive. A final general directive may reaffirm or modify a general directive subsection, in whole or in part.

    § 670.27 Special directives.

    (a) General. The Administrator may issue a special directive under this part to one or more named recipients for any of the following reasons—

    (1) The Administrator has reason to believe that a recipient is engaging in conduct, or there is evidence of a pattern or practice of a recipient's conduct, in violation of any statute, regulation, or directive issued under those laws for which the Administrator exercise enforcement authority for safety;

    (2) The Administrator determines that an unsafe condition or practice, or a combination of unsafe conditions and practices, causes an emergency situation involving a hazard of death, personal injury, damage to property or equipment, or significant harm to the environment; or

    (3) For any other purpose where the Administrator determines that the public interest requires the avoidance or mitigation of a hazard or risk through immediate compliance.

    (b) Effective date. A special directive is effective upon notice provided by the Administrator under paragraph (c) of this section.

    (c) Notice. The Administrator will provide personal notice directly to a named recipient. The Administrator may initially provide notice through telephone or electronic communications; however, written notice must be served by personal service or by U.S. mail following a telephonic or electronic communication. Personal notice must contain the following information, at minimum—

    (1) The name of the recipient or recipients to which the directive applies;

    (2) A reference to the authority under which the directive is being issued; and

    (3) A statement of the purpose of the issuance of the directive including a description of the subjects or issues involved, a statement of facts upon which the notice is being issued, and statement of the remedial actions sought.

    (d) Petition for reconsideration. Within thirty (30) days of service of a notice issued under subsection (c) of this section, a named recipient may file a petition for reconsideration with the Administrator. Upon written request, the Administrator may extend the time for filing for good cause shown. Unless explicitly stayed or modified by the Administrator, a special directive will remain in effect and must be observed pending review of a petition for reconsideration. Any such petition:

    (1) Must be in writing and signed by the recipient's Accountable Executive or equivalent entity;

    (2) Must include a brief explanation as to why the recipient believes the special directive should not apply to it or why compliance with a special directive is not possible, is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public interest; and

    (3) May include relevant information regarding the factual basis upon which the directive was issued, information in response to any alleged violation or in mitigation thereof, recommend alternative means of compliance for consideration, and any other information deemed appropriate by the recipient.

    (e) Filing a petition for reconsideration. A petition must be submitted to the Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, using one of the following methods—

    (1) Email to FTA at [email protected];

    (2) Facsimile to FTA at 202-366-3809; or

    (3) Mail to FTA at: FTA, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    (f) Processing of petitions for reconsideration.

    (1) General. Each petition received under this section will be reviewed and disposed of by the Chief Counsel no later than ninety days (90) after receipt of a petition. No hearing, argument or other proceeding is held directly on a petition before its disposition under this section.

    (2) Grants. If the Chief Counsel determines that the petition contains adequate justification, he or she may grant the petition, in whole or in part.

    (3) Denials. If the Chief Counsel determines that the petition does not justify modifying, rescinding, or revoking the petition, in whole or in part, he or she may deny the petition.

    (4) Notification. Upon determination by the Chief Counsel, the Office of Chief Counsel will issue notification to a named recipient of his or her decision.

    (g) Judicial Review. A recipient may seek judicial review in an appropriate United States District Court of a final action of the Administrator under this section as provided in 5 U.S.C. 701 through706.

    § 670.29 Advisories.

    (a) The Administrator may issue an advisory to one or more recipients, upon determining that an unsafe condition exists within a public transportation system, which recommends corrective actions, inspections, conditions, limitations, or other actions to resolve or mitigate the unsafe condition. The Administrator will issue notice to recipients of an advisory in the Federal Register.

    (b) The Administrator may take into consideration a recipient's or State's failure to follow the recommendations contained within an advisory when deciding whether to take other enforcement actions.

    Subpart D—National Public Transportation Safety Plan
    § 670.31 Purpose and contents of the national public transportation safety plan.

    Periodically, FTA will issue a National Public Transportation Safety Plan to improve the safety of all public transportation systems that receive funding under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. The National Public Transportation Safety Plan will be comprised of the following:

    (a) Safety performance criteria for all modes of public transportation, established through public notice-and-comment;

    (b) The definition of State of Good Repair established in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5326 and the rules at 49 CFR part 625;

    (c) Minimum safety performance standards for vehicles in revenue operations, established through public notice-and-comment;

    (d) The Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program established in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(c) and the rules at 49 CFR part 672;

    (e) Safety advisories, directives, and reports issued in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(f) and this part;

    (f) Best practices, technical assistance, and pilot programs in carrying out Safety Management Systems in public transportation;

    (g) Research, reports, data and information on hazard identification and risk management in public transportation, and guidance regarding the prevention of accidents and incidents in public transportation; and

    (h) Any other content as determined by FTA.

    [FR Doc. 2015-20021 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    80 157 Friday, August 14, 2015 Notices COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Oklahoma Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Prepare for the September 11 Meeting Regarding the School to Prison Pipeline in Oklahoma AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Oklahoma Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, September 9, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. CST for the purpose of preparing questions for presenters at the September 11, 2015, meeting on the school to prison pipeline in Oklahoma. The Committee approved a project proposal on the topic at its March 27, 2015, meeting.

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-329-8893, conference ID: 6962657. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement at the end of the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Member of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by October 9, 2015. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Administrative Assistant, Carolyn Allen at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=269 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions
    Vicki Limas, Chair Discussion on preparation for meeting on School to Prison Pipeline in Oklahoma Oklahoma Advisory Committee Open Comment Adjournment DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 9, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.

    Public Call Information

    Dial: 888-329-8893

    Conference ID: 6962657

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312-353-8311 or [email protected].

    Dated: August 11, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20043 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Advisory Committees Expiration AGENCY:

    United States Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Solicitation of applications.

    SUMMARY:

    Because the terms of the members of the Georgia Advisory Committee are expiring on December 12, 2015, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the Georgia Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of Georgia to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Southern Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than October 12, 2015. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.

    Because the terms of the members of the North Dakota Advisory Committee are expiring on December 12, 2015, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the North Dakota Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of North Dakota to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Rock Mountain Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than October 12, 2015. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.

    Because the terms of the members of the Delaware Advisory Committee are expiring on December 12, 2015, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the Delaware Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of Delaware to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Eastern Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than October 12, 2015. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.

    DATES:

    Letters of interest for membership on the Georgia Advisory Committee should be received no later than October 12, 2015.

    Letters of interest for membership on the North Dakota Advisory Committee should be received no later than October 12, 2015.

    Letters of interest for membership on the Delaware Advisory Committee should be received no later than October 12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send letters of interest for the Georgia Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Southern Regional Office, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. Letter can also be sent via email to [email protected]

    Send letters of interest for the North Dakota Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 999 18th Street NW., Suite 1380, Denver, CO 80294. Letter can also be sent via email to [email protected]

    Send letters of interest for the Delaware Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Eastern Regional Office, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425. Letter can also be sent via email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60603, (312) 353-8311. Questions can also be directed via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Georgia, North Dakota, and Delaware Advisory Committees are statutorily mandated federal advisory committees of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1975a. Under the charter for the advisory committees, the purpose is to provide advice and recommendations to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) on a broad range of civil rights matters in its respective state that pertain to alleged deprivations of voting rights or discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or the administration of justice. Advisory committees also provide assistance to the Commission in its statutory obligation to serve as a national clearinghouse for civil rights information.

    Each advisory committee consists of not more than 19 members, each of whom will serve a four-year term. Members serve as unpaid Special Government Employees who are reimbursed for travel and expenses. To be eligible to be on an advisory committee, applicants must be residents of the respective state or district, and have demonstrated expertise or interest in civil rights issues.

    The Commission is an independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957 to focus on matters of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Its mandate is to:

    • Investigate complaints from citizens that their voting rights are being deprived,

    • study and collect information about discrimination or denials of equal protection under the law,

    • appraise federal civil rights laws and policies,

    • serve as a national clearinghouse on discrimination laws,

    • submit reports and findings and recommendations to the President and the Congress, and

    • issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination.

    The Commission invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed a member of the Georgia, North Dakota, or Delaware Advisory Committee covered by this notice to send a letter of interest and a resume to the respective address above.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20042 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: Quarterly Services Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0907.

    Form Number(s): QSS-0A, QSS-0E, QSS-1A, QSS-1E, QSS-1PA, QSS-1PE, QSS-2A, QSS-2E, QSS-3A, QSS-3E, QSS-3SA, QSS-3SE, QSS-5A, QSS-5E, QSS-6A, QSS-6E, QSS-7A, QSS-7E, QSS-8A, QSS-8E, QSS-9A, QSS-9E, QSS-4A, QSS-4E, QSS-4SA, QSS-4SE, QSS4fA, QSS4fE.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Number of Respondents: 23,500.

    Average Hours per Response: 13.34 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 20,900.

    Needs and Uses: As far back as the 1980s, there was a realization that despite its growing importance and share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the service economy was not adequately covered by the existing federal statistics programs. Before the Quarterly Services Survey (QSS) economic indicator existed for the service sector, the only data available were from the Service Annual Survey (SAS) and the five-year Economic Censuses. The decision was made to expand the scope of the Census Bureau's existing annual survey and to create a new principal economic indicator to cover services. Based on this effort, the QSS is now a major source for the development of quarterly GDP and an indicator of short-term economic change.

    With the first release of the QSS in 2004, it became the first new U.S. federal government economic indicator in 30 years. The initial scope of the QSS was driven primarily by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) priorities and what the budget initiative would allow. The goal was to begin covering the most dynamic sectors of the service economy for which BEA had little to no alternate source data. In the wake of the dot-com bubble in the early 2000s, it was clear that information services and high-tech industries needed to be a priority as BEA experienced major revisions to their GDP estimates as annual data came in later. So, at the time it was launched, QSS produced estimates for just 3 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) sectors (51, 54, and 56) representing roughly 15% of GDP.

    Shortly after the Financial Crisis in 2007-2008, QSS received approval to expand the scope of the survey to match that of the Economic Census of Services. A major part of this expansion would provide for tracking of the Financial sector which, of course, was now in the spotlight. Between 2009 and 2010, QSS underwent a multi-phased expansion, increasing the total coverage from 3 to 11 NAICS sectors which together account for over 50 percent of GDP.

    QSS expanded yet again in 2012 to cover the Accommodation subsector which was the only remaining service industry with no sub-annual coverage.

    We currently publish estimates based on the 2007 NAICS. The QSS covers all or parts of the following NAICS sectors: Utilities (excluding government owned); Transportation and warehousing (except rail transportation and postal) services; Information; Finance and insurance (except funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles); Real estate and rental and leasing; Professional, scientific, and technical services; Administrative and support and waste management and remediation services; Educational services (except elementary and secondary schools, junior colleges, and colleges, universities, and professional schools); Health care and social assistance; Arts, entertainment, and recreation; Accommodation; and Other services (except public administration). The QSS provides the most current reliable measures of total revenue and percentage of revenue by class of customer (for selected industries) on a quarterly basis. In addition, the QSS provides the only current quarterly measure of total expenses from tax-exempt firms in industries that have a large not-for-profit component. All respondent data are received by mail, facsimile, telephone, or Internet reporting.

    The total revenue estimates produced from the QSS provide current trends of economic activity in the service industry in the United States from service providers with paid employees.

    In addition to revenue, we also collect total expenses from tax-exempt firms in industries that have a large not-for-profit component. Expenses provide a better measure of the economic activity of these firms. Expense estimates produced by the QSS, in addition to inpatient days and discharges for the hospital industry, are used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to project and study hospital regulation, Medicare payment adequacy, and other related projects. For select industries in the Arts, entertainment, and recreation sector, the survey produces estimates of admissions revenue.

    We will continue to publish no later than 75 days after the end of each calendar quarter.

    Reliable measures of economic activity are essential to an objective assessment of the need for, and impact of, a wide range of public policy decisions. The QSS supports these measures by providing the latest estimates of service industry output on a quarterly basis.

    Currently, the U.S. Census Bureau collects, tabulates, and publishes estimates to provide, with measurable reliability, statistics on domestic service total revenue, total expenses, and percentage of revenue by class of customer for select service providers. In addition, the QSS produces estimates for inpatient days and discharges for hospitals. In the future, QSS may produce breakdowns of revenue from financial firms. This depends on the quality and amount of data received as well as its reliability and accuracy.

    The BEA is the primary Federal user of QSS results. The BEA utilizes the QSS estimates to make improvements to the national accounts for service industries. In the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), the QSS estimates allow more accurate estimates of both Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) and private fixed investment. For example, recently published revisions to the quarterly NIPA estimates resulted from the incorporation of new source data from the QSS. Revenue estimates from the QSS are also used to produce estimates of gross output by industry that allow BEA to produce a much earlier release of the gross domestic product by industry estimates.

    Estimates produced from the QSS are used by the BEA as a component of quarterly GDP estimates. The estimates also provide the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) and Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) with timely information on current economic performance. All estimates collected from this survey are used extensively by various government agencies and departments on economic policy decisions; private businesses; trade organizations; professional associations; academia; and other various business research and analysis organizations.

    The CMS uses the QSS estimates to develop hospital spending estimates in the National Accounts. In addition, the QSS estimates improve their ability to analyze hospital spending trends. The CMS also uses the estimates in its healthcare indicator analysis publication; ten-year health spending forecast estimates; and studies in hospital regulation and Medicare policy, procedures, and trends.

    The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac) utilizes the QSS estimates to assess payment adequacy in the current Medicare program.

    The FRB and the CEA use the QSS information to better assess current economic performance. In addition, other government agencies, businesses, and investors use the QSS estimates for market research, industry growth, business planning and forecasting.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: Quarterly.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, sections 131 and 182.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: August 11, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20049 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-23-2015] Authorization of Production Activity, Foreign-Trade Subzone 93I, Cormetech, Inc., (Selective Catalyst Reduction Catalysts), Durham, North Carolina

    On April 9, 2015, the Triangle J Council of Governments, grantee of FTZ 93, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of Cormetech, Inc., for its facility located in Durham, North Carolina.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (80 FR 22706, 4-23-2015). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: August 10, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20095 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-51-2015] Foreign-Trade Zone 225—Springfield, Missouri; Application for Expansion (New Magnet Site) Under Alternative Site Framework

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by the City of Springfield Airport Board, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 225, requesting authority to expand its zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)) to include a new magnet site in Neosho, Missouri. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on August 10, 2015.

    FTZ 225 was established by the Board on August 1, 1997 (Board Order 911, 62 FR 43143, 8/12/1997) and reorganized and expanded under the alternative site framework on September 30, 2011 (Board Order 1782, 76 FR 63285, 10/12/2011). The zone currently has a service area that includes the Counties of Barry, Barton, Cedar, Christian, Dade, Dallas, Douglas, Greene, Hickory, Howell (partial), Jasper, Laclede, Lawrence, McDonald, Newton, Ozark, Polk, Stone, Taney, Texas (partial), Vernon, Webster and Wright. The zone consists of the following sites: Site 1 (2,363 acres)—Springfield-Branson National Airport Complex, five miles northwest of downtown, Springfield; Site 2 (88.77 acres, sunset 9/30/2017)—Jarden Consumer Solutions, 303 Nelson Avenue, Neosho; and, Site 3 (55 acres, sunset 5/31/2016)—General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, 4174 County Road 180, Carthage.

    The applicant is now requesting authority to expand its zone to include an additional magnet site: Proposed Site 4 (297.97 acres)—Neosho Industrial Park located in Neosho (Newton County). The application indicates that the proposed site is adjacent to the Springfield Customs and Border Protection port of entry.

    In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 13, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to October 28, 2015.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz. For further information, contact Camille Evans at [email protected] or (202) 482-2350.

    Dated: August 10, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20094 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-085-2015] Approval of Subzone Status, Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc., Lancaster, California

    On June 9, 2015, the Acting Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the City of Palmdale, California, grantee of FTZ 191, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 191, on behalf of Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc., in Lancaster, California.

    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (80 FR 34140, 6/15/2015). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 191A is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 191's 1,446.2-acre activation limit.

    Dated: August 6, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20090 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-22-2015] Authorization of Production Activity, Foreign-Trade Zone 134, Cormetech, Inc., (Selective Catalyst Reduction Catalysts), Cleveland, Tennessee

    On April 1, 2015, Cormetech, Inc., an operator of FTZ 134, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility in Cleveland, Tennessee.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (80 FR 22705-22706, 4-23-2015). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: August 10, 2015. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20093 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-818] Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 14, 2015.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 12, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published its notice of initiation and preliminary results of a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty order on Certain Pasta from Italy.1 The Department preliminarily determined that P.A.P. S.R.L. (PAP SRL) is the successor-in-interest to P.A.P. SNC Di Pazienza G. B. & C. (PAP SNC). No parties submitted comments, and for these final results we continue to find that PAP SRL is the successor-in-interest to PAP SNC.

    1See Certain Pasta From Italy: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 33480 (June 12, 2015) (Initiation and Preliminary Results).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cindy Robinson or Eric B. Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3797 and (202) 482-6071, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On April 22, 2015, PAP SRL requested that the Department conduct a CCR to determine whether it is the successor-in-interest to PAP SNC, for purposes of determining antidumping duties due as a result of the Pasta from Italy Order. 2 On June 12, 2015, the Department published its Initiation and Preliminary Results, in which it preliminarily determined that PAP SRL is the successor-in-interest to PAP SNC.3 The Department invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. 4 We received none.

    2See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 38547 (July 24, 1996) (Pasta from Italy Order).

    3See Preliminary Results, 80 FR at 33480.

    4Id.

    Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.5

    5 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the memorandum titled “Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Pasta from Italy” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with the Initiation and Preliminary Results.

    Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    Because no parties submitted comments on the Department's Initiation and Preliminary Results, and because there is no other information or evidence on the record that calls into question the Initiation and Preliminary Results, the Department determines that PAP SRL is the successor-in-interest to PAP SNC for the purpose of determining antidumping duty liability.

    Instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

    As a result of this determination, we find that PAP SRL should receive the cash deposit rate previously assigned to PAP SNC in the most recently completed review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. Consequently, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect estimated antidumping duties for all shipments of subject merchandise exported by PAP SRL and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register at the current cash deposit rate for PAP SNC, which is zero.6 This cash deposit requirement shall remain in effect until further notice.

    6 PAP SNC was a respondent in the 14th administrative review of the Pasta from Italy Order and received a deposit rate of 3.57 percent. See Pasta from Italy: Final Results of the Fourteenth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 76937 (December 9, 2011). As a result of the “section 129” determination, the company's deposit rate is now zero; see Notice of Implementation of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Latvia, Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From Finland, Certain Pasta From Italy, Purified Carboxymethylcellulose From the Netherlands, Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Spain, Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan, 77 FR 36257 (June 18, 2012). See also, PAP SRL's CCR request dated April 22, 2015.

    Notification

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216(e).

    Dated: August 7, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20087 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-523-811] Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From the Sultanate of Oman: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that de minimis countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers/exporters of certain polyethylene terephthalate resin (PET resin) from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman). The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 14, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 30, 2015, the Department initiated this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation.1 On the same day, the Department also initiated an antidumping duty (AD) investigation of PET Resin from Oman.2 On May 7, 2015, in response to a request from the Petitioners,3 the Department postponed the preliminary determination in the CVD investigation.4

    1See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the People's Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate of Oman: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 80 FR 18369 (April 6, 2015).

    2See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From Canada, the People's Republic of China, India, and the Sultanate of Oman: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 80 FR 18376 (April 6, 2015).

    3 DAK Americas, LLC, M&G Chemicals, and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America, (Petitioners).

    4See Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From the People's Republic of China, India and the Sultanate of Oman: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Countervailing Duty Investigations, 80 FR 27635 (May 14, 2015).

    Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination

    In accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), and based on Petitioners' request,5 we are aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion AD investigation of PET Resin from Oman. Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than December 21, 2015, unless postponed.6

    5See Letter from Petitioners, “Investigation of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from Oman—Petitioners' Request to Align the Countervailing Duty Final Determination with the Companion Antidumping Duty Final Determination,” (July 31, 2015).

    6 The actual deadline is 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, or December 20, 2015, which is a Sunday. Department practice dictates that where a deadline falls on a weekend or federal holiday, the appropriate deadline is the next business day (in this instance, December 21, 2015). See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is PET resin. The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheading 3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.7

    7See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance regarding “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Negative Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the Sultanate of Oman,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). For a list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, see the Appendix to this notice.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this CVD investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov/login.aspx and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rate to be:

    8 In accordance with section 703(b)(4) of the Act, we are disregarding de minimis subsidies for the purposes of this preliminary determination.

    Company Subsidy rate OCTAL SAOC-FZC and OCTAL Holding SAOC 0.28 percent (de minimis) 8

    Consistent with section 703(b)(4)(A) of the Act, we have disregarded de minimis rates and preliminarily determine that countervailable subsides are not being provided with respect to the manufacture, production or exportation of the subject merchandise in Oman. Consistent with section 703(d) of the Act, the Department has not calculated an all-others rate because it has not reached an affirmative preliminarily determination. Because the estimated subsidy rate for the examined company is de minimis, we will not direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise from Oman.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(l) of the Act, we intend to verify the information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final determination.

    International Trade Commission

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. In accordance with section 705(b)(3) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the lTC will make its final determination within 75 days after we make our final determination.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement.9 Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs,10 and request a hearing.11 For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing requests, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    9See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    10See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d).

    11See 19 CFR 351.510.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: August 7, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Alignment IV. Scope Comments V. Scope of the Investigation VI. Injury Test VII. Subsidies Valuation VIII. Analysis of Programs IX. Calculation of the All Others Rate X. United States International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification XI. Disclosure and Public Comment XII. Verification XIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2015-20086 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-984] Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on drawn stainless steel sinks (sinks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of review (POR) January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, based on the timely withdrawal of requests for review.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 14, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lana Nigro, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1779.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On April 1, 2015, the Department published the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on sinks from the PRC for the POR January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.1 On April 28, 2015, Guangdong Yingao Utensils Co., Ltd. (Yingao), B&R Industries Limited (B&R), Guangdong New Shichu Import and Export Co., Ltd. (New Shichu), and Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd. (Dongyuan) requested an administrative review of their POR sales.2 On April 29, 2015, Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd. (Superte) requested an administrative review of its POR sales.3 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department published a notice initiating an administrative review of Yingao, B&R, New Shichu, Dongyuan, and Superte on May 26, 2015.4 Yingao, New Shichu and Dongyuan withdrew their requests for an administrative review on June 24, 2015.5 B&R withdrew its request for an administrative review on July 27, 2015.6 Superte withdrew its request for administrative review on July 28, 2015.7

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 80 FR 17392 (April 1, 2015).

    2See Letter from Yingao, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Request for Administrative Review” dated April 28, 2015; letter from B&R, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Request for Countervailing Duty Administrative Review” dated April 28, 2015; letter from New Shichu, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Request for Administrative Review” dated April 28, 2015; letter from Dongyuan, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Request for Administrative Review” dated April 28, 2015.

    3See Letter from Superte, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from China; Administrative Review Request” dated April 29, 2015.

    4See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 30041 (May 26, 2015).

    5See Letter from Yingao, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Withdraw Request for Annual Administrative Review” dated June 24, 2015; letter from New Shichu, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Withdraw Request for Annual Administrative Review” dated June 24, 2015; letter from Dongyuan, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Withdraw Request for Annual Administrative Review” dated June 24, 2015.

    6See Letter from B&R, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of Request for Countervailing Duty Administrative Review” dated July 27, 2015.

    7See Letter from Superte, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from China: Withdrawal of Administrative Review Request” dated July 28, 2015.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party or parties that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, all parties withdrew their requests for review within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation. No other parties requested an administrative review of the order. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review in its entirety.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of sinks from the PRC. Countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review.

    Notifications

    This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: August 7, 2015. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-19981 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-025] Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). We invite interested parties to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 14, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yasmin Nair or Ilissa Shefferman, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202.482.3813 or 202.482.4684, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is PET resin. The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheading 3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.1

    1 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.2 For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://trade.gov/enforcement. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    2See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    The Department notes that, in making this preliminary determination, we relied, in part, on facts available and, because one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.3 For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    3See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Alignment

    As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation of PET resin from the PRC based on a request made by Petitioners.4 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than December 21, 2015,5 unless postponed.

    4 DAK Americas, LLC, M&G Chemicals, and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America (collectively, Petitioners); see also Letter from Petitioners dated, July 31, 2015.

    5 We note that the current deadline for the final AD determination is December 20, 2015, which is a Sunday. Pursuant to Department practice, the signature date will be the next business day, which is Monday, December 21, 2015. See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

    Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated an individual rate for each exporter/producer of the subject merchandise individually investigated. We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:

    Exporter/producer Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Jiangyin Xingyu New Material Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Xingye Plastic Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Xingjia Plastic Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Xingtai New Material Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Xingye Polarization Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Sanfangxiang Group Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Hailun Petrochemicals Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Xinlun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Huasheng Polymer Co., Ltd., Jiangsu SanFangxiang International Trading Co., Ltd., Jiangyin HuaYi Polymerization Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Xingsheng Plastic Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Huaxing Synthetic Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Bolun Chemical Fiber Co., Ltd. (collectively, Xingyu) 4.27 Dragon Special Resin (Xiamen) Co., Ltd.; Xiang Lu Petrochemicals Co., Ltd.; Xianglu Petrochemicals (Zhangzhou) Co., Ltd.; and Xiamen Xianglu Chemical Fiber Company Limited (collectively, Dragon) 18.88 All-Others 11.58

    In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of all entries of PET resin from the PRC that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above.

    Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act state that, for companies not investigated, we determine an “all-others rate,” by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual company subsidy rate of each of the companies investigated by each company's exports of subject merchandise to the United States excluding rates that are zero or de minimis or any rates determined entirely on the facts available. Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not calculated the “all-others” rate by weight-averaging the rates of the two individually investigated respondents, because doing so risks disclosure of proprietary information. Therefore, for the “all-others” rate, we calculated a simple average of the two responding companies' rates.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information submitted by the respondents prior to making our final determination.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose calculations performed for this preliminary determination to the parties within five days of the date of public announcement of this determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Case briefs or other written comments for all non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.6 A table of contents, list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

    6See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed request for a hearing must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.7 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number; the number of participants; and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined. Parties will be notified of the date and time of any hearing. The hearing will be limited to issues raised in the respective briefs.8

    7See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    8Id.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: August 7, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background A. Case History B. Period of Investigation III. Scope Comments IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Alignment VI. Respondent Selection VII. Injury Test VIII. Application of the Countervailing Duty Law to Imports From the PRC IX. Subsidies Valuation A. Allocation Period B. Attribution of Subsidies C. Denominators X. Benchmarks and Discount Rates A. Short-Term RMB-Denominated Loans B. Long-Term RMB-Denominated Loans C. Foreign Currency-Denominated Loans D. Discount Rates E. Input Benchmarks XI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences XII. Analysis of Programs A. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable 1. Policy Loans to the PET Resin Industry 2. Preferential Export Financing 3. Export Seller's Credits 4. Import Tariff and Value-Added Tax (VAT) Exemptions on Imported Equipment in Encouraged Industries 5. Provision of Inputs for LTAR a. Provision of MEG and PTA for LTAR b. Provision of Electricity for LTAR 6. Energy Savings Technology Reform 7. 2013 Annual Incentive Funds Stable Foreign Trade Policy 8. Export Credit Insurance 9. Import/Export Credit Insurance/2013 Foreign Trade Policy Award 10. Transition Gold Support 11. Overseas Investment Discount (Jiangsu Province DOC) 12. Energy Saving 13. Technology Reform Interest Subsidy 14. 2012 and 2013 Refund of Land Use Tax 15. Income Tax Deduction for New High-Technology Enterprise (HNTE) 16. Project Subsidy From Haicang Bureau of Science and Technology 17. Other Subsidy: Bounty for Enterprise With Production and Sales Growth: 0.02 Percent Ad Valorem 18. Other Subsidy: 2013 Enterprise Financing Subsidy: 0.02 Percent Ad Valorem 19. Other Subsidy: Subsidy Income in the Fourth Quarter of 2013: 0.01 Percent Ad Valorem 20. Other Subsidy: Subsidy for Social Security: 0.03 Percent Ad Valorem 21. Other Subsidy: Bounty for Enterprise With Production and Sales Growth: 0.01 Percent Ad Valorem 22. Other Subsidy: 2013 Export Credit Insurance Premium Subsidy: 0.01 percent Ad Valorem 23. Other Subsidy: Subsidy for Social Security Premium of Employees: 0.01 Percent Ad Valorem B. Programs Preliminary Determined Not To Be Used During the POI 1. International Market Exploration Fund (SME Fund) 2. City Construction Tax and Education Fees Exemptions for FIEs 3. Xiamen Municipality Support for Pivotal Manufacturing Industries 4. Xinghuo Development Zone Recycling Economic Construction Specialized Fund 5. Science & Technology Awards 6. Yangpu Economic Development Zone Preferential Tax Policies 7. Xinghuo Development Zone Industrial Structural Adjustment Fund 8. Income Tax Credits for Foreign Invested Enterprises (FIEs) and Certain

    Domestically-Owned Companies Purchasing Domestically-Produced Equipment

    9. VAT Subsidies for FIEs 10. Provision of Land for LTAR to Enterprises in Xinghuo Development Zone, Fengxian District, Shanghai Municipality 11. Provision of Land for LTAR to Enterprises in Yangpu Economic Development Zone, Hainan Province C. Programs With No Measurable Benefit 1. GOC and Sub-Central Government Subsidies for the Development of Famous Brands and China World Top Brands 2. Income Tax Deductions for Research and Development Expenses Under the Enterprise Income Tax Law 3. VAT Refunds for FIEs Purchasing Domestically-Produced Equipment D. Programs for Which Additional Information Is Needed 1. Provisions of Land for LTAR to Enterprises in Haicang Investment Zone, Xiamen, Fuijian Province 2. New Subsidy Allegations 3. Additional Cross-Owned Companies XIII. ITC Notification XIV. Disclosure and Public Comment XV. Verification XVI. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2015-20088 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-937; A-570-958; A-570-956; A-570-977; A-570-970; A-570-979; A-570-981] Implementation of Determinations Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Citric Acid and Citrate Salts From the People's Republic of China; Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From the People's Republic of China; Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the People's Republic of China; High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China; Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China; Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China; Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of China AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On August 4, 2015, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) instructed the Department of Commerce (Department) to implement its determinations under section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) regarding the antidumping duty (AD) investigations on certain coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed presses from the People's Republic of China (PRC); seamless carbon and alloy steel standard, line, and pressure pipe from the PRC; high pressure steel cylinders from the PRC; multilayered wood flooring from the PRC; certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules, from the PRC; and utility scale wind towers from the PRC; and regarding the AD administrative review of citric acid and citrate salts from the PRC, which renders them not inconsistent with the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement findings in the Appellate Body report on United States — Countervailing and Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Products from China, WT/DS449/AB/R (July 7, 2014), and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report, WT/DS449/R (March 27, 2014), adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body on July 22, 2014 (DS 449). The Department issued its final determinations in these section 129 proceedings between July 14, 2015, and July 31, 2015.1 The Department is now implementing these final determinations.

    1See Memoranda from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, regarding: (1) Section 129 Proceeding (WTO DS449): Antidumping Duty Review of Citric Acid and Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China—Final Determination (dated July 14, 2015); (2) Section 129 Proceeding (WTO DS449): Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from the People's Republic of China—Final Determination (dated July 16, 2015); (3) Section 129 Proceeding (WTO DS449): Antidumping Duty Investigation of Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe from the People's Republic of China—Final Determination (dated July 27, 2015); (4) Section 129 Proceeding (WTO DS449): Antidumping Duty Investigation of High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China—Final Determination (dated July 16, 2015); (5) Section 129 Proceeding (WTO DS449): Antidumping Duty Investigation of Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China—Final Determination (dated July 14, 2015); (6) Section 129 Proceeding (WTO DS449): Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China—Final Determination (dated July 31, 2015); and (7) Section 129 Proceeding (WTO DS449): Antidumping Duty Investigation of Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China—Final Determination (dated July 31, 2015).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 4, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Wang or Erin Begnal, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5673 or (202) 482-1442.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 28, 2015, the Department informed parties that it was initiating proceedings under section 129 of the URAA to implement the findings adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in DS 449 with respect to the above-referenced AD investigations and administrative review. These proceedings concern the Department's imposition of ADs calculated on the basis of the methodology for nonmarket economy countries prescribed by section 773(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), as amended, concurrently with the imposition of countervailing duties upon the same products without having assessed whether so-called “double remedies,” (i.e., the offsetting of the same subsidy twice) arose from such concurrent duties.

    Between February 2015 and April 2015, the Department issued questionnaires to certain respondents in the underlying investigations and administrative review, concerning the issue of double remedies. Between May 2015, and June 2015, the Department issued the preliminary determinations in these section 129 proceedings and provided interested parties an opportunity to comment. Following the comment period, the Department issued its final determinations for the section 129 proceedings between July 14, 2015, and July 31, 2015.

    In its August 4, 2015 letter, the USTR notified the Department that, consistent with section 129(b)(3) of the URAA, consultations with the Department and the appropriate congressional committees with respect to the final determinations have been completed. Also on August 4 2015, in accordance with section 129(b)(4) of the URAA, the USTR directed the Department to implement these determinations.

    Nature of the Proceedings

    Section 129 of the URAA governs the nature and effect of determinations issued by the Department to implement findings by WTO dispute settlement panels and the Appellate Body.

    Specifically, section 129(b)(2) of the URAA provides that “notwithstanding any provision of the Tariff Act of 1930,” upon a written request from the USTR, the Department shall issue a determination that would render its actions not inconsistent with an adverse finding of a WTO panel or the Appellate Body.2 The Statement of Administrative Action, U.R.A.A., H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) (SAA), variously refers to such a determination by the Department as a “new,” “second,” and “different” determination.3 After consulting with the Department and the appropriate congressional committees, the USTR may direct the Department to implement, in whole or in part, the new determination made under section 129 of the URAA.4 Pursuant to section 129(c) of the URAA, the new determination shall apply with respect to unliquidated entries of the subject merchandise that are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the date on which the USTR directs the Department to implement the new determination.5 The new determination is subject to judicial review, separate and apart from judicial review of the Department's original determination.6

    2See 19 U.S.C. 3538(b)(2).

    3See SAA at 1025, 1027.

    4See 19 U.S.C. 3538(b)(4).

    5See 19 U.S.C. 3538(c).

    6See 19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vii).

    Final Determinations: Analysis of Comments Received

    To the extent that issues were raised by interested parties during the period for comment following the issuance of the preliminary determinations, those issues are addressed in the respective final determinations. The final determinations are public documents and are available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, complete versions of the final determinations can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/download/section129/full-129-index.html. The signed versions of the final determinations and the electronic versions of the final determinations are identical in content.

    Final Antidumping Duty Margins

    The AD rates, as included in the final determinations are as follows:

    7 Consistent with our practice, where the product was also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty proceeding, the weighted-average margins listed here reflect a deduction for the countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy.

    8 Consistent with our practice, where the product was also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty proceeding, the weighted-average margins listed here reflect a deduction for the countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy.

    9 Consistent with our practice, where the product was also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty proceeding, the weighted-average margins listed here reflect a deduction for the countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy.

    10 The countervailing duty margins calculated in the concurrent countervailing duty investigation did not consist of any countervailing duty determined to constitute export subsidies.

    Citric Acid and Citrate Salts From the People's Republic of China [AD review] Exporter Weighted-average margin (percent) 7 RZBC Co., Ltd., RZBC Import & Export Co., Ltd., and RZBC (Juxian) Co, Ltd 0.00 Yixing Union Biochemical Co., Ltd 1.01 Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From the People's Republic of China [AD investigation] Exporter Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent) 8
  • Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd.; Gold Huasheng Paper Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Zhonghua Paper Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Asia Pulp and Paper Co., Ltd.; Gold East (Hong Kong) Trading Co., Ltd Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd.; Gold Huasheng Paper Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Zhonghua Paper Co., Ltd.; Ningbo Asia Pulp and Paper Co., Ltd 7.62 Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd 7.62 PRC-wide Entity * 135.83 * Includes: Shandong Sun Paper Industry Joint Stock Co., Ltd., Yanzhou Tianzhang Paper Industry Co., Ltd., Shandong International Paper and Sun Coated Paperboard Co., Ltd., International Paper and Sun Cartonboard Co., Ltd. (collectively, Sun Paper).
    Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From the People's Republic of China [AD investigation] Exporter Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Margin
  • adjusted
  • for export
  • subsidies
  • (percent) 9
  • Tianjin Pipe International Economic and Trading Corporation Tianjin Pipe (Group) Corporation 50.01 49.93 Hengyang Steel Tube Group International Trading Inc Hengyang Valin Steel Tube Co., Ltd 82.24 80.12 Hengyang Steel Tube Group International Trading Inc Hengyang Valin MPM Tube Co., Ltd 82.24 80.12 Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd Xigang Seamless Steel Tube Co., Ltd. and Wuxi Seamless Special Pipe Co., Ltd 66.13 65.03 Jiangyin City Changjiang Steel Pipe Co., Ltd Jiangyin City Changjiang Steel Pipe Co., Ltd 66.13 65.03 Pangang Group Chengdu Iron & Steel Co., Ltd Pangang Group Chengdu Iron & Steel Co., Ltd 66.13 65.03 Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd Yangzhou Lontrin Steel Tube Co., Ltd 66.13 65.03 Yangzhou Chengde Steel Tube Co., Ltd Yangzhou Chengde Steel Tube Co., Ltd 66.13 65.03 PRC-wide Entity 98.74 98.74
    High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China [AD investigation] Exporter Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent) 10
  • Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd 6.62 Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd Tianjin Tianhai High Pressure Container Co., Ltd 6.62 Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd Langfang Tianhai High Pressure Container Co., Ltd 6.62 Shanghai J.S.X. International Trading Corporation Shanghai High Pressure Special Gas Cylinder Co., Ltd 6.62 Zhejiang Jindun Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd Zhejiang Jindun Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd 6.62 Shijiazhuang Enric Gas Equipment Co., Ltd Shijiazhuang Enric Gas Equipment Co., Ltd 6.62 PRC-wide Rate * 31.21 * Includes: Shanghai High Pressure Container Co., Ltd.; Heibei Baigong Industrial Co., Ltd.; Nanjing Ocean High-Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Baigong Industrial and Trading Co., Ltd.; Shandong Huachen High Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd.; Shandong Province Building High Pressure Vessel Limited Company; Sichuan Mingchuan Chengyu Co., Ltd.; and Zhuolu High Pressure Vessel Co., Ltd.

    11 The countervailing duty margins calculated in the concurrent countervailing duty investigation did not consist of any countervailing duty determined to constitute export subsidies.

    Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China [AD Investigation] Exporter Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent) 11
  • Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd * 0.00 The Samling Group ** The Samling Group ** * 0.00 Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co., Ltd Zhejiang Yuhua Timber Co., Ltd * 0.00 Jiaxing Brilliant Import & Export Co., Ltd Zhejiang Layo Wood Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 MuDanJiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd MuDanJiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 MuDanJiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd Zhejiang Jiechen Wood Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd 3.30 Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd Shenyang Sende Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd 3.30 Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd Shanghai Demeijia Wooden Co., Ltd 3.30 Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd 3.30 Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 Dunhua Jisheng Wood Industry Co., Ltd Dunhua Jisheng Wood Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Hunchun Forest Wolf Industry Co., Ltd Hunchun Forest Wolf Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Guangzhou Panyu Southern Star Co., Ltd Guangzhou Jiasheng Timber Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Nanjing Minglin Wooden Industry Co., Ltd Nanjing Minglin Wooden Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Zhejiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co., Ltd Zhejiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 Guangzhou Pan Yu Kang Da Board Co., Ltd Guangzhou Pan Yu Kang Da Board Co., Ltd 3.30 Kornbest Enterprises Ltd Guangzhou Pan Yu Kang Da Board Co., Ltd 3.30 Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc. Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd 3.30 Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc. Mudanjiang Bosen Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc. Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd 3.30 Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc. Hunchun Forest Wolf Wooden Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc. Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd 3.30 Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc. Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd 3.30 Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd 3.30 Xinyuan Wooden Industry Co., Ltd Xinyuan Wooden Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd 3.30 Hong Kong Easoon Wood Technology Co., Ltd Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd 3.30 Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd 3.30 Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd 3.30 Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industry Co., Ltd Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd 3.30 Dalian Jiuyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd Dalian Jiuyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd 3.30 Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics LLC Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics LLC 3.30 Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd Dunhua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd 3.30 Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd 3.30 GTP International Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 GTP International Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd 3.30 GTP International Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 GTP International Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd 3.30 Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd 3.30 Huzhou Fulinmen Imp & Exp. Co., Ltd Huzhou Fulinmen Wood Floor Co., Ltd 3.30 Huzhou Fuma Wood Bus. Co., Ltd Huzhou Fuma Wood Bus. Co., Ltd 3.30 Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd 3.30 Jiashan Hui Jia Le Decoration Material Co., Ltd Jiashan Hui Jia Le Decoration Material Co., Ltd 3.30 Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd 3.30 Karly Wood Product Limited Karly Wood Product Limited 3.30 Kunshan Yingyi-Nature Wood Industry Co., Ltd Kunshan Yingyi-Nature Wood Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Puli Trading Ltd Baiying Furniture Manufacturer Co., Ltd 3.30 Shanghai Eswell Timber Co. Ltd Shanghai Eswell Timber Co. Ltd 3.30 Shanghai Lairunde Wood Co., Ltd Shanghai Lairunde Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 Shanghai New Sihe Wood Co., Ltd Shanghai New Sihe Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 Shanghai Shenlin Corporation Shanghai Shenlin Corporation 3.30 Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd 3.30 Tak Wah Building Material (Suzhou) Co. Ltd Vicwood Industry (Suzhou) Co., Ltd 3.30 Tech Wood International Ltd Vicwood Industry (Suzhou) Co., Ltd 3.30 Xiamen Yung De Ornament Co., Ltd Xiamen Yung De Ornament Co., Ltd 3.30 Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 Yixing Lion-King Timber Industry Co., Ltd Yixing Lion-King Timber Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Jiangsu Simba Flooring Industry Co., Ltd Yixing Lion-King Timber Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Zhejiang Biyork Wood Co., Ltd Zhejiang Biyork Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 Zhejiang Dadongwu GreenHome Wood Co., Ltd Zhejiang Dadongwu GreenHome Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 Zhejiang Desheng Wood Industry Co., Ltd Zhejiang Desheng Wood Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd 3.30 Zhejiang Tianzhen Bamboo & Wood Development Co., Ltd Zhejiang Tianzhen Bamboo & Wood Development Co., Ltd 3.30 Chinafloors Timber (China) Co. Ltd Chinafloors Timber (China) Co. Ltd 3.30 Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd, also known as The Lizhong Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd, also known as The Lizhong Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai 3.30 Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited 3.30 Huzhou Sunergy World Trade Co. Ltd Zhejiang Haoyun Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 Huzhou Sunergy World Trade Co. Ltd Nanjing Minglin Wooden Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Huzhou Sunergy World Trade Co. Ltd Zhejiang AnJi XinFeng Bamboo & Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 Huzhou Jesonwood Co., Ltd Zhejiang Jeson Wood Co., Ltd 3.30 Huzhou Jesonwood Co., Ltd Huzhou Jesonwood Co., Ltd 3.30 A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd 3.30 A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd Suzhou Anxin Weiguang Timber Co., Ltd 3.30 Fu Lik Timber (HK) Company Limited Guangdong Fu Lin Timber Technology Limited 3.30 Yekalon Industry, Inc./Sennorwell International Group (Hong Kong) Limited Jilin Xinyuan Wooden Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd 3.30 Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd 3.30 Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd 3.30 PRC-wide Entity 58.84
    Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China [AD investigation] Exporter Producer Previous
  • weighted
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent) 12
  • Previous cash deposit rate
  • adjusted for
  • export subsidies
  • (percent)
  • Revised AD cash deposit rate adjusted for double
  • remedies
  • (percent)
  • Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd 18.32 7.78 6.68 Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd 29.14 18.60 18.06 Separate Rates (list) 24.48 13.94 13.18 Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. and Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Ltd Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Trina Solar (Changzhou) Science & Technology Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd., Luoyang Suntech Power Co., Ltd., Suntech Power Co., Ltd. and Wuxi Sun-shine Power Co., Ltd Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Luoyang Suntech Power Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Suntech Power Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Wuxi Sun-shine Power Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 24.48 Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited 24.48 13.94 13.18 Tianwei New Energy (Chengdu) PV Module Co., Ltd Tianwei New Energy (Chengdu) PV Module Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Canadian Solar International Limited Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc 24.48 13.94 13.18 Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc 24.48 13.94 13.18 Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu) Inc Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc 24.48 13.94 13.18 Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc 24.48 13.94 13.18 Hanwha Solarone (Qidong) Co., Ltd Hanwha Solarone (Qidong) Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science Technology Co., Ltd CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science Technology Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 CEEG Nanjing Renewable Energy Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 CEEG Nanjing Renewable Energy Co., Ltd CEEG Nanjing Renewable Energy Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Jiawei Solarchina Co., Ltd Jiawei Solarchina (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited 24.48 13.94 13.18 Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 LDK Solar Hi-tech (Nanchang) Co., Ltd LDK Solar Hi-tech (Nanchang) Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 LDK Solar Hi-tech (Suzhou) Co., Ltd LDK Solar Hi-tech (Suzhou) Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Jiawei Solarchina (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd Jiawei Solarchina (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Changzhou NESL Solartech Co., Ltd Changzhou NESL Solartech Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co., Ltd China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd Chint Solar (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Suzhou Shenglong PV-Tech Co., Ltd Suzhou Shenglong PV-TECH Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd tenKsolar (Shanghai) Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Upsolar Group, Co., Ltd HC Solar Power Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Zhiheng Solar Inc 24.48 13.94 13.18 Zhejiang Leye Photovoltaic Science & Technology Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Tianwei New Energy (Chengdu) PV Module Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Zhejiang ZG-Cells Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Zhejiang Xinshun Guangfu Science and Technology Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Zhejiang Jiutai New Energy Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Wanxiang Import & Export Co., Ltd Zhejiang Wanxiang Solar Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Jinko Solar Import and Export Co., Ltd Jinko Solar Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 JinkoSolar International Limited Jinko Solar Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 CNPV Dongying Solar Power Co., Ltd CNPV Dongying Solar Power Co., LTD 24.48 13.94 13.18 CSG PVTech Co., Ltd CSG PVTech Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Delsolar Co., Ltd DelSolar (Wujiang) Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Dongfang Electric (Yixing) MAGI Solar Power Technology Co., Ltd Dongfang Electric (Yixing) MAGl Solar Power Technology Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Eoplly New Energy Technology Co., Ltd Eoplly New Energy Technology Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 ERA Solar Co., Ltd ERA Solar Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 ET Solar Energy Limited ET Solar Industry Limited 24.48 13.94 13.18 Hangzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology Co., Ltd Hangzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Himin Clean Energy Holdings Co., Ltd Himin Clean Energy Holdings Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd JingAo Solar Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Jetion Solar (China) Co., Ltd Jetion Solar (China) Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Jiangsu Green Power PV Co., Ltd Jiangsu Green Power PV Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Jiangsu Sunlink PV Technology Co., Ltd Jiangsu Sunlink PV Technology Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 JingAo Solar Co., Ltd JingAo Solar Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Konca Solar Cell Co., Ltd Konca Solar Cell Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Leye Photovoltaic Co., Ltd Leye Photovoltaic Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Lightway Green New Energy Co., Ltd Lightway Green New Energy Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Motech (Suzhou) Renewable Energy Co., Ltd Motech (Suzhou) Renewable Energy Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Ningbo ETDZ Holdings, Ltd Hangzhou Zhejiang University Sunny Energy Science and Technology Co., LTD 24.48 13.94 13.18 Ningbo Komaes Solar Technology Co., Ltd Ningbo Komaes Solar Technology Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Ningbo Ulica Solar Science & Technology Co., Ltd Ningbo Ulica Solar Science & Technology Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Perlight Solar Co., Ltd Perlight Solar Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Risen Energy Co., Ltd Risen Energy Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Shanghai BYD Company Limited Shanghai BYD Company Limited 24.48 13.94 13.18 Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Shanghai Solar Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd Shanghai Solar Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Shenzhen Topray Solar Co., Ltd Shenzhen Topray Solar Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Solarbest Energy-Tech (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd Solarbest Energy-Tech (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Sopray Energy Co., Ltd Sopray Energy Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Sumec Hardware & Tools Co., Ltd Phono Solar Technology Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Sun Earth Solar Power Co., Ltd Sun Earth Solar Power Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Yuhuan Sinosola Science & Technology Co., Ltd Yuhuan Sinosola Science & Technology Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Yuhuan Solar Energy Source Co., Ltd Yuhuan Solar Energy Source Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Zhejiang Jiutai New Energy Co., Ltd Zhejiang Topoint Photovoltaic Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Zhejiang Shuqimeng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd Zhejiang Shuqimeng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd 24.48 13.94 13.18 Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Limited Liability Company Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology Limited Liability Company 24.48 13.94 13.18 PRC-wide Rate 249.96 239.42 238.88 12 The calculated margins in the underlying investigation were not adjusted to reflect a deduction for any countervailing duty determined to constitute export subsidies. Rather, consistent with Department practice, we adjust the cash deposit rates for export and domestic subsidy offsets to the extent appropriate. Both domestic subsidy and export subsidy adjustments are reflected under “Revised AD Cash Deposit Rate Adjusted for Double Remedies.”
    Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People's Republic of China [AD investigation] Exporter Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent) 13
  • Chengxi Shipyard Co., Ltd Chengxi Shipyard Co., Ltd 36.98 Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd Titan (Lianyungang) Metal Product Co., Ltd 34.33 Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd Titan Wind Energy (Suzhou) Co., Ltd 34.33 CS Wind Corporation CS Wind China Co., Ltd 35.81 Guodian United Power Technology Baoding Co., Ltd Guodian United Power Technology Baoding Co., Ltd 35.77 Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd Qiangsheng Wind Equipment Co., Ltd 35.77 PRC-wide Entity 60.02 13 Consistent with our practice, where the product was also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty proceeding, the weighted-average margins listed here reflect a deduction for the countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy.
    Implementation of the Revised Cash Deposit Requirements

    On August 4, 2015, in accordance with sections 129(b)(4) and 129(c)(1)(B) of the URAA and after consulting with the Department and Congress, the USTR directed the Department to implement these final determinations. With respect to each of these proceedings, unless the applicable cash deposit rate has been superseded by intervening administrative reviews, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to require a cash deposit for estimated ADs at the appropriate rate for each exporter/producer specified above, for entries of subject merchandise, entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after August 4, 2015.

    This notice of implementation of these section 129 final determinations is published in accordance with section 129(c)(2)(A) of the URAA.

    Dated: August 7, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20085 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-862] Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin From India: Preliminary Affirmative Determination, Preliminary Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers/exporters of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from India. The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 14, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yasmin Nair or Angelica Townshend, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3813 or (202) 482-3019, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is PET resin. The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheading 3907.60.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.1

    1 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India,” dated concurrently with this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.2 For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://trade.gov/enforcement. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    2See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    3See Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    The Department notes that, in making this preliminary determination, we relied, in part, on facts available and, because one respondent did not act to the best of its ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available with respect to that respondent.4 For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    4See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Alignment

    As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty (AD) investigation of PET resin from India based on a request made by Petitioners.5 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than December 21, 2015,6 unless postponed.

    5 DAK Americas, LLC; M&G Chemicals; and Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, America (collectively, Petitioners); see also Letter from Petitioners dated, July 31, 2015.

    6 We note that the current deadline for the final AD determination is December 20, 2015, which is a Sunday. Pursuant to Department practice, the signature date will be the next business day, which is Monday, December 21, 2015. See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

    Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    On July 16, 2015, Petitioners filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 773(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of PET resin from India.7 We preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist for Dhunseri Petrochem Ltd., but do exist for JBF Industries Limited, and the all-others companies. A discussion of our determination can be found in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum at the section, “Critical Circumstances.”

    7See Letter from Petitioners dated July 16, 2015.

    Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation

    We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rates to be:

    Exporter/producer Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Dhunseri Petrochem Ltd (formerly Dhunseri Petrochem and Tea Ltd) (collectively, Dhunseri) 5.50 JBF Industries Limited 115.04 All-Others 5.50

    In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of PET resin from India that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. Moreover, because we preliminarily find that critical circumstances exist with respect to JBF Industries Ltd. and all other exporters or producers not individually examined, in accordance with section 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we are directing CBP to apply the suspension of liquidation to any unliquidated entries entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption by these companies, on or after the date which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act state that for companies not investigated, we will determine an all-others rate by weighting the individual company subsidy rate of each of the companies investigated by each company's exports of subject merchandise to the United States, excluding rates that are zero or de minimis or any rates determined entirely on the facts available. In this investigation, the only rate that is not zero or de minimis or determined entirely on facts available is the rate calculated for Dhunseri. Consequently, the rate calculated for Dhunseri is also assigned as the “all-others” rate.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we intend to verify the information submitted by Dhunseri and the Government of India (GOI) prior to making our final determination.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed for this preliminary determination within five days of the date of public announcement of this determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Case briefs or other written comments for all non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.8 A table of contents, list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. This summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.

    8See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed request for a hearing must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.9 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number; the number of participants; and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined. Parties will be notified of the date and time of any hearing. The hearing will be limited to issues raised in the respective briefs.10

    9See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    10Id.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: August 7, 2015. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background A. Initiation and Case History B. Period of Investigation III. Alignment IV. Scope Comments V. Scope of the Investigation VI. Injury Test VII. Subsidies Valuation A. Allocation Period B. Attribution of Subsidies C. Denominators D. Benchmarks and Discount Rates Short-Term and Long-Term Rupee Denominated Loans Discount Rates VIII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences JBF Industries Limited (JBF) Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate Corroboration of Secondary Information IX. Critical Circumstances X. Analysis of Programs A. Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable 1. Export Promotion of Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG) 2. Duty Drawback (DDB) 3. Focus Product Scheme (FPS) 4. Income Tax Exemption Scheme (ITES) 5. Incentive Under the West Bengal State Support for Industries Scheme B. Programs Preliminary Determined Not To Be Used or Not To Confer a Benefit During the POI by Dhunseri Government of India Programs a) Pre- and Post-Shipment Export Financing b) Status Holder Incentive Scrip c) Advance Licenses Program d) Focus Market Scheme e) Special Economic Zones (6 programs) Export Oriented Units (EOUs) Program: Duty Drawback on Furnace Oil Procured From Domestic Oil Companies f) GOI Loan Guarantees g) Market Development Assistance Program State Government Programs h) Maharashtra Market Development Assistance Program i) Maharashtra Industrial Promotion Subsidy j) Maharashtra Electricity Duty Exemption k) Maharashtra Waiver of Stamp Duty l) State Government of Maharashtra—Incentives to Strengthening Micro-, Small-, and Medium-Sized and Large Scale Industries m) State Government of Gujarat—Industrial Policy 2009 Scheme C. Programs For Which Additional Information Is Needed D. Preliminary AFA Rates Determined for Programs Used by JBF XI. Calculation of the All Others Rate XII. ITC Notification XIII. Disclosure and Public Comment XIV. Verification

    Recommendation

    [FR Doc. 2015-20124 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence Participant Letter of Interest AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before October 13, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Lucy Salah, 9600 Gudelsky Dr., Rockville, MD 20850 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    In order to fulfill its core mission, the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) publishes announcements in the Federal Register of new collaborative projects to address cybersecurity challenges. In response to these announcements, technology vendors are invited to submit Letters of Interest (LoI) for technologies relevant to the challenge. These letters specify the product(s) that the potential collaborator is submitting for consideration, how the product(s) address(es) one or more of the requirements of the project, and contact information for the company's representative. Subsequent to the submission of LoIs, NIST invites companies with relevant technology to enter into a Collaborative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with NIST.

    II. Method of Collection

    Upon request, submitters are provided with questions in an electronic document that can be filled in, signed, and submitted via mail or electronic mail.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0693-XXXX.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: New Information Collection.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for profit.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 100 per year.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 50 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: August 10, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20015 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket Number: 150508436-5436-01] National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, Attribute Based Access Control Building Block AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invites organizations to provide products and technical expertise to support and demonstrate security platforms for the Attribute Based Access Control Building Block. This notice is the initial step for the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) in collaborating with technology companies to address cybersecurity challenges identified under the Attribute Based Access Control Building Block. Participation in the building block is open to all interested organizations.

    DATES:

    Interested parties must contact NIST to request a letter of interest template to be completed and submitted to NIST that identifies the organization requesting participation in the Attribute Based Access Control Building Block and the capabilities and components that are being offered to the collaborative effort. Letters of interest will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. Collaborative activities will commence as soon as enough completed and signed letters of interest have been returned to address all the necessary components and capabilities, but no earlier than September 14, 2015. When the building block has been completed, NIST will post a notice on the NCCoE Attribute Based Access Control Building Block Web site at http://nccoe.nist.gov/content/attribute-based-access-control announcing the completion of the building block and informing the public that it will no longer accept letters of interest for this building block.

    ADDRESSES:

    The NCCoE is located at 9600 Gudelsky Drive, Rockville, MD 20850. Letters of interest must be submitted to [email protected] or via hardcopy to National Institute of Standards and Technology, NCCoE; 9600 Gudelsky Drive; Rockville, MD 20850. Organizations whose letters of interest are accepted in accordance with the process set forth in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice will be asked to sign a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with NIST. A CRADA template can be found at: http://nccoe.nist.gov/node/138.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bill Fisher via email at to [email protected], by telephone 240-314-6838; or by mail to National Institute of Standards and Technology, NCCoE; 9600 Gudelsky Drive; Rockville, MD 20850. Additional details about the Attribute Based Access Control Building Block are available at http://nccoe.nist.gov/content/attribute-based-access-control.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The NCCoE, part of NIST, is a public-private collaboration for accelerating the widespread adoption of integrated cybersecurity tools and technologies. The NCCoE brings together experts from industry, government, and academia under one roof to develop practical, interoperable cybersecurity approaches that address the real-world needs of complex Information Technology (IT) systems. By accelerating dissemination and use of these integrated tools and technologies for protecting IT assets, the NCCoE will enhance trust in U.S. IT communications, data, and storage systems; reduce risk for companies and individuals using IT systems; and encourage development of innovative, job-creating cybersecurity products and services.

    Process

    NIST is soliciting responses from all sources of relevant security capabilities (see below) to enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to provide products and technical expertise to support and demonstrate security platforms for the Attribute Based Access Control Building Block. The full building block can be viewed at: http://nccoe.nist.gov/content/attribute-based-access-control.

    Interested parties should contact NIST using the information provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. NIST will then provide each interested party with a letter of interest template, which the party must complete, certify that it is accurate, and submit to NIST and which identifies the organization requesting participation in the Attribute Based Access Control Building Block and the capabilities and components that are being offered to the collaborative effort. NIST will contact interested parties if there are questions regarding the responsiveness of the letters of interest to the building block objective or requirements identified below and to obtain additional information. NIST will select participants who have submitted complete letters of interest on a first come, first served basis within each category of product components or capabilities listed below up to the number of participants in each category necessary to carry out the Attribute Based Access Control Building Block. However, there may be continuing opportunity to participate even after initial activity commences. Selected participants will be required to enter into a consortium CRADA with NIST (for reference, see ADDRESSES section above). NIST published a notice in the Federal Register on October 19, 2012 (77 FR 64314) inviting U.S. companies to enter into National Cybersecurity Excellence Partnerships (NCEPs) in furtherance of the NCCoE. For this demonstration project, NCEP partners will not be given priority for participation.

    Building Block Objective

    Enterprises face the continual challenge of providing access control mechanisms for subjects requesting access to corporate resources (e.g. applications, networks, systems and data). Authentication is required for a diverse set of subjects, who may be known or unknown to the enterprise, and may present the organization with differing credentials. Once authenticated, enterprises require a strong authorization system that enables fine-grain access decisions based on a range of users, resources, and environmental conditions. These challenges, combined with the growth and distributed nature of enterprise resources, as well as the need to share information among stakeholders that are not managed directly by the enterprise, has spawned the demand for highly flexible access control mechanisms.

    This building block will use commercially available technologies to demonstrate an enterprise Attribute Based Access Control implementation that makes run-time authorization decisions and enforces a rich set of access control policies consistently across an enterprise (or enterprises). Information about a subject, the resource being accessed, and the environmental context at the time of attempted access shall form the basis for access control decisions, rather than pre-provisioned privileges within individual systems.

    Through the use of an attribute exchange platform, this project will exhibit a federated access control environment, allowing for the secure sharing of IT resources across multiple enterprises. In this manner, enterprises enable unanticipated, yet valid, federated identities to gain access, without the traditional challenge of waiting for identity provisioning or authorization approvals.

    A detailed description of the Attribute Based Access Control Building Block are available at: http://nccoe.nist.gov/content/attribute-based-access-control.

    Requirements

    Each responding organization's letter of interest should identify which security platform component(s) or capability(ies) it is offering. Letters of interest should not include company proprietary information, and all components and capabilities must be commercially available. Components are listed in section ten of the Attribute Based Access Control Building Block (for reference, please see the link in the PROCESS section above) and include, but are not limited to:

    • Identity management software that includes functions like: Account provisioning, de-provisioning and directory services

    • Platform for exchanging attributes

    • Federation server

    • Databases for policy database, identity store, subject attribute repository, object and attribute repository

    • Policy server, to serve as the policy administration point

    • Access management system, which may include the policy decision point, policy enforcement point and context handler

    • Authentication server and components supporting two factor authentication

    • Cryptographic means to protect subject privacy during interactions between RPs, IDPs, APs and the attribute exchange platform.

    Each responding organization's letter of interest should identify how their product(s) address one or more of the desired solution characteristics in section five of the Attribute Based Access Control Building Block description (for reference, please see link in PROCESS section above).

    Additional details about the Attribute Based Access Control Building Block are available at: http://nccoe.nist.gov/content/attribute-based-access-control.

    NIST cannot guarantee that all of the products proposed by respondents will be used in the demonstration. Each prospective participant will be expected to work collaboratively with NIST staff and other project participants under the terms of the consortium CRADA in the development of the Attribute Based Access Control Building Block. Prospective participants' contribution to the collaborative effort will include assistance in establishing the necessary interface functionality, connection and set-up capabilities and procedures, demonstration harnesses, environmental and safety conditions for use, integrated platform user instructions, and demonstration plans and scripts necessary to demonstrate the desired capabilities. Each participant will train NIST personnel, as necessary, to operate its product in capability demonstrations. Following successful demonstrations, NIST will publish a description of the security platform and its performance characteristics sufficient to permit other organizations to develop and deploy security platforms that meet the security objectives of the Attribute Based Access Control Building Block. These descriptions will be public information.

    Under the terms of the consortium CRADA, participants will commit to providing:

    1. Access for all participants' project teams to component interfaces and the organization's experts necessary to make functional connections among security platform components 2. Support for development and demonstration of the Attribute Based Access Control Building Block in NCCoE facilities which will be conducted in a manner consistent with Federal requirements (e.g., FIPS 200, FIPS 201, SP 800-53, and SP 800-63)

    In addition, NIST will support development of interfaces among participants' products by providing IT infrastructure, laboratory facilities, office facilities, collaboration facilities, and staff support to component composition, security platform documentation, and demonstration activities.

    The dates of the demonstration of the Attribute Based Access Control Building Block capability will be announced on the NCCoE Web site at least two weeks in advance at http://nccoe.nist.gov/. The expected outcome of the demonstration is to improve Attribute Based Access Control within the enterprise. Participating organizations will gain from the knowledge that their products are interoperable with other participants' offerings.

    For additional information on the NCCoE governance, business processes, and NCCoE operational structure, visit the NCCoE Web site http://nccoe.nist.gov/.

    Richard Cavanagh, Acting Associate Director for Laboratory Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-20041 Filed 8-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket No.: 150805680-5680-01] National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, Derived Personal Identity Verification Credentials Building Block AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invites organizations to provide products and technical expertise to support and demonstrate security platforms for the Derived Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Credentials Building Block. This notice is the initial step for the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) in collaborating with technology companies to address cybersecurity challenges identified under the Derived PIV Credentials Building Block. Participation in the building block is open to all interested organizations.

    DATES:

    Interested parties must contact NIST to request a letter of interest template to be completed and submitted to NIST that identifies the organization requesting participation in the NCCoE Derived PIV Credentials Building Block and the capabilities and components that are being offered to the collaborative effort. Letters of interest will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. Collaborative activities will commence as soon as enough completed and signed letters of interest have been returned to address all the necessary components and capabilities, but no earlier than September 14, 2015. When the building block has been completed, NIST will post a notice on the NCCoE Derived PIV Credentials Building Block Web site at http://nccoe.nist.gov/derivedcredentials/ announcing the completion of the building block and informing the public that it will no longer accept letters of interest for this Derived PIV Credentials building block.

    ADDRESSES:

    The NCCoE is located at 9600 Gudelsky Drive, Rockville, MD 20850. Letters of interest may be submitted to [email protected] or via hardcopy to National Institute of Standards and Technology, NCCoE; 9600 Gudelsky Drive; Rockville, MD 20850. Organizations whose letters of interest are accepted in accordance with the process set forth in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice will be asked to sign a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with NIST. A CRADA template can be found at: http://nccoe.nist.gov/node/138.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tim McBride via email to [email protected]; by telephone 240-314-6811; or by mail to National Institute of Standards and Technology, NCCoE; 9600 Gudelsky Drive; Rockville, MD 20850. Additional details about the Derived PIV Credentials Building Block are available at http://nccoe.nist.gov/derivedcredentials/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The NCCoE, part of NIST, is a public-private collaboration for accelerating the widespread adoption of integrated cybersecurity tools and technologies. The NCCoE brings together experts from industry, government, and academia under one roof to develop practical, interoperable cybersecurity approaches that address the real-world needs of complex Information Technology (IT) systems. By accelerating dissemination and use of these integrated tools and technologies for protecting IT assets, the NCCoE will enhance trust in U.S. IT communications, data, and storage systems; reduce risk for companies and individuals using IT systems; and encourage development of innovative, job-creating cybersecurity products and services.

    Process

    NIST is soliciting responses from all sources of relevant security capabilities (see below) to enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to provide products and technical expertise to support and demonstrate security platforms for the Derived PIV Credentials building block. The full Derived Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Credentials building block can be viewed at: http://nccoe.nist.gov/derivedcredentials/.

    Interested parties must contact NIST to request a letter of interest template to be completed and submitted to NIST that identifies the organization requesting participation in the NCCoE Derived PIV Credentials Building Block and the capabilities and components that are being offered to the collaborative effort. NIST will contact interested parties if there are questions regarding the responsiveness of the letters of interest to the Derived PIV Credentials building block objective or requirements identified below and to obtain additional information. NIST will select participants who have submitted responsive letters of interest on a first come, first served basis within each category of product components or capabilities listed below up to the number of participants in each category necessary to carry out this Derived PIV Credentials building block. However, there may be continuing opportunity to participate even after initial activity commences. Selected participants will be required to enter into a consortium CRADA with NIST (for reference, see ADDRESSES section above). NIST published a notice in the Federal Register on October 19, 2012 (77 FR 64314) inviting U.S. companies to enter into National Cybersecurity Excellence Partnerships (NCEPs) in furtherance of the NCCoE. For this demonstration project, NCEP partners will not be given priority for participation.

    Derived PIV Credentials Building Block Objective

    Organizations protect their information systems, in part, by limiting access to the minimum set of users required to perform a function. This principle of “least privilege” requires both authentication and authorization processes. Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 201-2, “Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and Contractors,” recommends using smart cards with user data in conjunction with passwords to provide two-factor authentication to federal information systems. While many desktop and laptop computers have built-in card readers, enterprises today rely heavily on the productivity of mobile devices (i.e., smartphones and tablets) that do not easily accommodate card readers. Organizations reliant on smart-card-and-password two-factor authentication need to authenticate users of mobile devices in a way that is more tamper-resistant than a password and as easy to use as a smart card. However, it is challenging to use smart card on the various mobile devices due to their form factor. Attaching or tethering a separate external smart card reader to the mobile phones or tablets creates usability and portability challenges and makes the card an impractical authentication token.

    This building block will demonstrate, using smart cards, initially PIV cards, how derived smart card credentials can be added to mobile devices so that they may be used for remote authentication to information technology systems in operational environments. An initial derived credentials proof of