Federal Register Vol. 80, No.59,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 59 (March 27, 2015)

Page Range16249-16545
FR Document

80_FR_59
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 16366 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 16249 - Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy, 2015PDF
80 FR 16465 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 16360 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 16283 - Annual Safety Zones in the Eighth Coast Guard DistrictPDF
80 FR 16281 - Safety Zone; Vessel Fire and Escort, Port of New York, NJ, NYPDF
80 FR 16371 - Application Deadline for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015; Small, Rural School Achievement ProgramPDF
80 FR 16384 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 16414 - Modification of National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Test Concerning Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Cargo Release for Type 03 Entries and for Truck CarriersPDF
80 FR 16400 - Criteria for Requesting Federal Travel Restrictions for Public Health Purposes, Including for Viral Hemorrhagic FeversPDF
80 FR 16408 - Medicare, Medicaid, and CLIA Programs; Announcement of the Re-Approval of the American Osteopathic Association/Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (Formerly Known as the American Osteopathic Association) as an Accreditation Organization Under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988PDF
80 FR 16410 - Medicare, Medicaid, and CLIA Programs; Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 Exemption of Permit-Holding Laboratories in the State of New YorkPDF
80 FR 16395 - Announcement of the Re-Approval of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) as an Accreditation Organization Under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988PDF
80 FR 16413 - Medicare Program; Updates to the List of Durable Medical Equipment (DME) Specified Covered Items That Require a Face-to-Face Encounter and a Written Order Prior to DeliveryPDF
80 FR 16412 - Medicare Program; Renewal of the Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC)PDF
80 FR 16420 - Notice of Public Meeting for the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 16417 - Homeland Security Advisory CouncilPDF
80 FR 16306 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; 2015-2016 Recreational Fishing Season for Black Sea BassPDF
80 FR 16308 - Applicability of Risk-Informed Categorization Regulation to Combined LicensesPDF
80 FR 16462 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Metallurgy and Reactor Fuels; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 16462 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 16461 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Structural Analysis; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 16494 - Noise Exposure Map: Alexandria International Airport, Alexandria, LouisianaPDF
80 FR 16492 - In the Matter of the Designation of Aliaskhab Kebekov, Also Known as Aliaskhab Alibulatovich Kebekov, Also Known as Sheikh Ali Abu Muhammad ad-Dagestani, Also Known as Sheikh Abu Muhammad, Also Known as Abu Muhammad Ali ad-Dagestani, Also Known as Abu Mukhammad Aliaskhab, Also Known as Magomed Kebekov, Also Known as Ali Abu Muhammad al Dagestani, Also Known as Ali Abu Muhammed al-Dagestani, Also Known as Ali Abu-Mukhammad, Also Known as Ali Abu Mukhammad, Also Known as Ali Abu Muhammad, Also Known as Abu-Muhammad al-Qawqazi, Also Known as Abu Mukhammad Kebekov; as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as AmendedPDF
80 FR 16419 - Opening of Nomination Period for Members of the Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource SciencePDF
80 FR 16492 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Discovering the Impressionists: Paul Durand-Ruel and the New Painting” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 16492 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Pleasure and Piety: The Art of Joachim Wtewael” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 16492 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Yoko Ono: One Woman Show 1960-1971”PDF
80 FR 16369 - National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity MeetingPDF
80 FR 16458 - Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee (WPAC)PDF
80 FR 16491 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; Determinations: “China: Through the Looking Glass”PDF
80 FR 16356 - Endangered and Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on Two Petitions To List Porbeagle SharksPDF
80 FR 16426 - Sugar from Mexico; DeterminationsPDF
80 FR 16259 - EnergyGuide Labels on TelevisionsPDF
80 FR 16456 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Labor Condition Application for H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 Non-ImmigrantsPDF
80 FR 16386 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16360 - Census Scientific Advisory Committee; Public MeetingPDF
80 FR 16463 - Amended Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program; Corrected NoticePDF
80 FR 16393 - National Institutes of Health Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of AuthorityPDF
80 FR 16518 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16491 - National Regulatory Fairness Hearing; Region III Regulatory Fairness BoardPDF
80 FR 16517 - Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending March 14, 2015PDF
80 FR 16506 - Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); Application for Renewal of ExemptionPDF
80 FR 16511 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption; Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)PDF
80 FR 16309 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes DryersPDF
80 FR 16363 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 16503 - Hours of Service of Drivers: McKee Foods Transportation, LLC, Application for ExemptionPDF
80 FR 16427 - United States and State of New York v. Twin America, LLC, et al.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact StatementPDF
80 FR 16354 - State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrying Vehicles; Listening SessionPDF
80 FR 16495 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
80 FR 16507 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
80 FR 16497 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
80 FR 16509 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 16502 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 16363 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
80 FR 16500 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
80 FR 16438 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Licensed Firearms Manufacturers Records of Production, Disposition, and Supporting DataPDF
80 FR 16438 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Firearms Disabilities for Nonimmigrant AliensPDF
80 FR 16436 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Records of Acquisition and Disposition, Registered Importers of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War on the U.S. Munitions Imports ListPDF
80 FR 16439 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Report of Firearms Transaction-Demand 2PDF
80 FR 16391 - Withdrawal of Information CollectionPDF
80 FR 16391 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 16405 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 16397 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
80 FR 16398 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 16390 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
80 FR 16386 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 16385 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 16450 - Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; Lower Living Standard Income LevelPDF
80 FR 16458 - Comment Request for Information Collection for OMB 1205-0028, Weekly Initial and Continued Claims (ETA 538 and ETA 539); Extension Without RevisionPDF
80 FR 16384 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 16379 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Plating and Polishing Area Sources (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 16373 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Metal Coil Surface Coating Plants (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 16372 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Community Right-to-Know Reporting Requirements Under Sections 311 and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (Renewal)PDF
80 FR 16457 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Senior Community Service Employment Program Performance Measurement SystemPDF
80 FR 16460 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Methylene Chloride StandardPDF
80 FR 16449 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Inorganic Arsenic StandardPDF
80 FR 16518 - Special Medical Advisory Group; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 16279 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, ORPDF
80 FR 16327 - Homeopathic Product Regulation: Evaluating the Food and Drug Administration's Regulatory Framework After a Quarter-Century; Public HearingPDF
80 FR 16465 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 16437 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
80 FR 16364 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16424 - Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Oil and Gas Development in the White River Field Office, ColoradoPDF
80 FR 16422 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Smoky Canyon Mine, Panels F and G Lease and Mine Plan Modification Project, Caribou County, IDPDF
80 FR 16493 - WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding Certain Measures Providing Export-Contingent Subsidies to Enterprises in Several Industrial Sectors in ChinaPDF
80 FR 16266 - Medical Devices; Neurological Devices; Classification of the Brain Injury Adjunctive Interpretive Electroencephalograph Assessment AidPDF
80 FR 16402 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Clinical Trial Sponsors: Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring CommitteesPDF
80 FR 16393 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Request for Samples and ProtocolsPDF
80 FR 16416 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Customs DeclarationPDF
80 FR 16417 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Foreign-Trade Zone Admission and/or Status Designation, and Application for Foreign-Trade Zone Activity PermitPDF
80 FR 16420 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment to the Challis Resource Management Plan for the Thompson Creek Mine Expansion and Public Land Disposal, Custer and Bannock Counties, IdahoPDF
80 FR 16381 - Registration Review Interim Decisions; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 16251 - NAC International MAGNASTOR® System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 4PDF
80 FR 16399 - Meeting of the President's Council on Fitness, Sports, and NutritionPDF
80 FR 16516 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel WANDERER CHARTERS; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 16517 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel UPTICK; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 16514 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel MISTY; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 16513 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel LIBERTY; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 16475 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt New Rule 21.17, Exchange Sharing of User Designated Risk SettingsPDF
80 FR 16466 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of Proposed Amendments to the MSRB Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures, and the Real-Time Transaction Reporting System and Subscription ServicePDF
80 FR 16471 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Physical Settlement of CDS ContractsPDF
80 FR 16477 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Listing and Trading of Shares of Principal EDGE Active Income ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
80 FR 16485 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Consisting of Amendments to MSRB Rule A-16, on Examination FeesPDF
80 FR 16487 - Griffin Institutional Access Real Estate Fund and Griffin Capital Advisor, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 16512 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel TAHOE DREAMER; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 16514 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel MAJESTIC; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 16515 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel GOLD RUSH; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 16516 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel F/V IRISH; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 16513 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel QUETZAL; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 16515 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel EL GUAPO; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
80 FR 16302 - Thiram; Pesticide TolerancePDF
80 FR 16461 - Notice of Availability of Calendar Year 2016 Competitive Grant Funds.PDF
80 FR 16490 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 16491 - Announcement of Open Federal Advisory Committee MeetingsPDF
80 FR 16367 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 16440 - Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee Joint Venture: Grant of a Permanent VariancePDF
80 FR 16389 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive License: Small Molecule Therapeutics Against Hepatitis C Virus InfectionPDF
80 FR 16359 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 16426 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Meda Pharmaceuticals, Inc.PDF
80 FR 16374 - Notice of Final Decision To Reissue the Vickery Environmental, Inc. Land-Ban ExemptionPDF
80 FR 16426 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: HOSPIRAPDF
80 FR 16284 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Plan Approval and Operating Permit FeesPDF
80 FR 16436 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.PDF
80 FR 16440 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Apertus PharmaceuticalsPDF
80 FR 16286 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision: Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide Best Available Retrofit Technology Limits for the Cheswick Power PlantPDF
80 FR 16330 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Plan Approval and Operating Permit FeesPDF
80 FR 16331 - Approval of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas; Tennessee; Redesignation of the Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga, 1997 PM2.5PDF
80 FR 16463 - Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2PDF
80 FR 16365 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
80 FR 16512 - Special Notice; CorrectionPDF
80 FR 16464 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 16362 - Certain Pasta From Turkey: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2013-2014PDF
80 FR 16277 - Special Local Regulation; Charleston Race Week, Charleston Harbor; Charleston, SCPDF
80 FR 16280 - Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Snake Creek, Islamorada, FLPDF
80 FR 16361 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Applications for Watch Duty-Exemption and 7113 Jewelry Duty-Refund ProgramPDF
80 FR 16347 - Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast SignalsPDF
80 FR 16379 - Registration Review; Draft Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessment; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
80 FR 16269 - Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and InductionPDF
80 FR 16296 - Deltamethrin; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
80 FR 16289 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer County Air Pollution Control District and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control DistrictPDF
80 FR 16329 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer County Air Pollution Control District and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control DistrictPDF
80 FR 16291 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
80 FR 16325 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France)PDF
80 FR 16318 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 16418 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
80 FR 16321 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 16251 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
80 FR 16255 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 16519 - Creating Economic Opportunities for Low- and Very Low-Income Persons and Eligible Businesses Through Strengthened “Section 3” RequirementsPDF

Issue

80 59 Friday, March 27, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16359-16360 2015-06973 AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 16366-16367 2015-07270 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Final Judgments and Competitive Impact Statements: U.S. and New York v. Twin America, LLC, et al., 16427-16436 2015-07055 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Census Scientific Advisory Committee, 16360-16361 2015-07066 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16390-16393, 16397-16399, 16405-16408 2015-07034 2015-07035 2015-07036 2015-07037 2015-07038 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals; Withdrawal, 16391 2015-07039 Criteria for Requesting Federal Travel Restrictions for Public Health Purposes, Including for Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers, 16400-16402 2015-07118 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Accreditation Organizations for Clinical Laboratories; Approvals: College of American Pathologists, 16395-16396 2015-07111 Accreditation Organizations under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments; Approvals: American Osteopathic Association/Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (formerly known as the American Osteopathic Association), 16408-16410 2015-07115 Charter Renewals: Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee, 16412 2015-07105 List of Durable Medical Equipment: Specified Covered Items that Require a Face-to Face-Encounter and a Written Order Prior to Delivery; Updates, 16413-16414 2015-07108 Medicare, Medicaid, and CLIA Programs: Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 Exemption of Permit-Holding Laboratories in New York, 16410-16412 2015-07113 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 16360 2015-07171 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Snake Creek, Islamorada, FL, 16280-16281 2015-06949 Willamette River, Portland, OR, 16279-16280 2015-07019 2015-07020 Safety Zones: RiverFest Fireworks, Neches River, Port Neches, TX, 16283-16284 2015-07140 Vessel Fire and Escort, Port of New York, NJ, NY, 16281-16283 2015-07139 Special Local Regulations: Charleston Race Week, Charleston Harbor; Charleston, SC, 16277-16279 2015-06950 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Economic Development Administration

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 16363-16364 2015-07047 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

RULES Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction, 16269-16277 2015-06909 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16364 2015-07014 Arms Sales, 16365-16369 2015-06960 2015-06976
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Importers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Hospira, McPherson, KS, 16426 2015-06969 Meda Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Decatur, IL, 16426-16427 2015-06971 Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Morgantown, WV, 16436 2015-06967 Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Apertus Pharmaceuticals, St. Louis, MO, 16440 2015-06966 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance; Determinations, 16363 2015-07057 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, 16369-16371 2015-07076 Small, Rural School Achievement Program; Application Deadline for Fiscal Year 2015, 16371-16372 2015-07138 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Weekly Initial and Continued Claims, 16458 2015-07030 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act: Lower Living Standard Income Level, 16450-16456 2015-07031 Energy Department Energy Department PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Dryers, 16309-16318 2015-07058 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Pennsylvania Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision: Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide Best Available Retrofit Technology Limits for the Cheswick Power Plan, 16286-16289 2015-06965 Pennsylvania; Plan Approval and Operating Permit Fees, 16284-16286 2015-06968 Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 16291-16296 2015-06847 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations:: California; Placer County Air Pollution Control and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control Districts, 16289-16291 2015-06858 Pesticide Tolerances: Deltamethrin, 16296-16302 2015-06861 Thiram, 16302-16306 2015-06981 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Placer County Air Pollution Control and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control Districts, 16329-16330 2015-06857 Pennsylvania; Plan Approval and Operating Permit Fees, 16330-16331 2015-06964 Tennessee; Redesignation of the Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga, 1997 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area to Attainment, 16331-16347 2015-06963 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Community Right-to-Know Reporting Requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, 16372-16373 2015-07026 Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule, 16384-16385 2015-07029 NESHAP for Metal Coil Surface Coating Plants; Renewal, 16373-16374 2015-07027 NESHAP for Plating and Polishing Area Sources, 16379 2015-07028 Environmental Impact Statements; Weekly Receipts, 16384 2015-07137 Exemptions: Reissuing the Vickery Environmental, Inc. Land-Ban Exemption, 16374-16378 2015-06970 Registration Review Interim Decisions, 16381-16384 2015-07004 Risk Assessments: Registration Review of Propoxycarbazone-sodium, 16379-16381 2015-06939 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 16255-16259 2015-06583 Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 16251-16255 2015-06615 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Helicopters, Previously Eurocopter France, 16325-16327 2015-06805 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 16318-16324 2015-06746 2015-06782 NOTICES Noise Exposure Map: Alexandria International Airport, Alexandria, Louisiana, 16494-16495 2015-07085 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals, 16347-16354 2015-06943 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Meetings: State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrying Vehicles; Listening Sessions, 16354-16355 2015-07054 NOTICES Commercial Drivers License Standards; Exemptions: Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler), 16511-16512 2015-07059 Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: McKee Foods Transportation, LLC, 16503-16506 2015-07056 U.S. Department of Energy, 16506-16507 2015-07060 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, 16495-16500, 16507-16509 2015-07051 2015-07052 2015-07053 Vision, 16500-16503, 16509-16511 2015-07046 2015-07049 2015-07050 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16386-16389 2015-07067 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 16386 2015-07033 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 16385 2015-07032 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission RULES EnergyGuide Labels on Televisions, 16259-16266 2015-07070 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals; Correction, 16512 2015-06959 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Medical Devices; Neurological Devices: Classification of the Brain Injury Adjunctive Interpretive Electroencephalograph Assessment Aid, 16266-16269 2015-07010 PROPOSED RULES Homeopathic Products: Evaluating Regulatory Framework After a Quarter-Century; Public Hearing, 16327-16329 2015-07018 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance for Clinical Trial Sponsors -- Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees, 16402-16405 2015-07009 Request for Samples and Protocols, 16393-16395 2015-07008 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Smoky Canyon Mine, Panels F and G Lease and Mine Plan Modification Project, Caribou County, ID, 16422-16424 2015-07012 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource Science, 16419-16420 2015-07082 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: Presidents Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition, 16399-16400 2015-06999 National Institutes of Health Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority, 16393 2015-07064
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

NOTICES Charter Renewals: Homeland Security Advisory Council, 16417 2015-07094
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department PROPOSED RULES Creating Economic Opportunities for Low and Very Low Income Persons: Eligible Businesses through Strengthened Section 3 Requirements, 16520-16545 2015-06544 NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 16418-16419 2015-06775 Interior Interior Department See

Geological Survey

See

Land Management Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Applications for Watch Duty-Exemption and 7113 Jewelry Duty-Refund Program, 16361-16362 2015-06948 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 16362-16363 2015-06951 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Sugar from Mexico, 16426 2015-07071 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Firearms Disabilities for Nonimmigrant Aliens, 16438 2015-07043 Licensed Firearms Manufacturers Records of Production, Disposition, and Supporting Data, 16438-16439 2015-07044 Records of Acquisition and Disposition, Registered Importers of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War on the U.S. Munitions Imports List, 16436-16437 2015-07042 Report of Firearms Transaction - Demand 2, 16439 2015-07041 Consent Decrees under the Clean Air Act, 16437 2015-07015
Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Inorganic Arsenic Standard, 16449-16450 2015-07023 Labor Condition Application for H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 Non-Immigrants, 16456-16457 2015-07068 Methylene Chloride Standard, 16460-16461 2015-07024 Senior Community Service Employment Program Performance Measurement System, 16457-16458 2015-07025
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Amendment to the Challis Resource Management Plan for the Thompson Creek Mine Expansion and Public Land Disposal, Custer and Bannock Counties, ID, 16420-16422 2015-07005 Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment, Oil and Gas Development, White River Field Office, CO, 16424-16426 2015-07013 Smoky Canyon Mine, Panels F and G Lease and Mine Plan Modification Project, Caribou County, ID, 16422-16424 2015-07012 Meetings: Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council, 16420 2015-07095 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Calendar Year 2016 Competitive Grant Funds, 16461 2015-06980 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel EL GUAPO, 16515 2015-06982 Vessel F/V IRISH, 16516-16517 2015-06984 Vessel GOLD RUSH, 16515-16516 2015-06985 Vessel LIBERTY, 16513 2015-06995 Vessel MAJESTIC, 16514 2015-06986 Vessel MISTY, 16514-16515 2015-06996 Vessel QUETZAL, 16513-16514 2015-06983 Vessel TAHOE DREAMER, 16512 2015-06987 Vessel UPTICK, 16517 2015-06997 Vessel WANDERER CHARTERS, 16516 2015-06998 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Prospective Grants of Exclusive Licenses: Small Molecule Therapeutics Against Hepatitis C Virus Infection, 16389-16390 2015-06974 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; Recreational Fishing Season for Black Sea Bass, 16306-16307 2015-07093 PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: 90-Day Finding on two Petitions to List Porbeagle Sharks, 16356-16358 2015-07073 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES NAC International MAGNASTOR System, Certificate of Compliance, Amendments, 16251 2015-07002 PROPOSED RULES Petition for Rulemaking: Applicability of Risk-Informed Categorization Regulation to Combined Licenses, 16308-16309 2015-07092 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2, 16463 2015-06961 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Metallurgy and Reactor Fuels, 16462 2015-07091 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures, 16462-16463 2015-07087 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Structural Analysis, 16461-16462 2015-07086 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Meetings: Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee, 16458-16460 2015-07075 Permanent Variances; Approvals: Traylor/Skanska/Jay Dee Joint Venture, 16440-16449 2015-06975 Pacific Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council NOTICES Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, 16463-16464 2015-07065 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 16464-16465 2015-06954 2015-06956 2015-07017 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Greek Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy (Proc. 9242), 16249-16250 2015-07242 Privacy Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 16465-16466 2015-07173 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Griffin Institutional Access Real Estate Fund and Griffin Capital Advisor, LLC, 16487-16490 2015-06989 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 16475-16477 2015-06994 ICE Clear Credit LLC, 16471-16475 2015-06992 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 16466-16471, 16485-16487 2015-06990 2015-06993 NYSE Arca, Inc., 16477-16485 2015-06991 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16490 2015-06979 Hearings: Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board, 16491 2015-07062 Meetings: National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board, 16491 2015-06977 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: China: Through the Looking Glass, 16491 2015-07074 Discovering the Impressionists -- Paul Durand-Ruel and the New Painting, 16492 2015-07079 Pleasure and Piety: The Art of Joachim Wtewael, 16492-16493 2015-07078 Yoko Ono - One Woman Show 1960-1971, 16492 2015-07077 Designations as Global Terrorists: Aliaskhab Kebekov, a.k.a. Aliaskhab Alibulatovich Kebekov, et al., 16492 2015-07083 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES WTO Dispute Settlements: Certain Measures Providing Export-Contingent Subsidies to Enterprises in Several Industrial Sectors in China, 16493-16494 2015-07011 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Maritime Administration

NOTICES Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits, 16517-16518 2015-07061
Treasury Treasury Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 16518 2015-07063 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Foreign-Trade Zone Admission and/or Status Designation, and Application for Foreign-Trade Zone Activity Permit, 16417-16418 2015-07006 Customs Declaration, 16416-16417 2015-07007 National Customs Automation Program Test Concerning Automated Commercial Environment Cargo Release, etc., 16414-16416 2015-07122 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Special Medical Advisory Group, 16518 2015-07021 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Housing and Urban Development Department, 16520-16545 2015-06544 Reader Aids

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

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

80 59 Friday, March 27, 2015 Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2014-0058] RIN 3150-AJ39 NAC International MAGNASTOR® System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 4 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the effective date of April 14, 2015, for the direct final rule that was published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2015. This direct final rule amended the NRC's spent fuel storage regulations by revising the NAC International MAGNASTOR® System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 4 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1031.

DATES:

The effective date of April 14, 2015, is confirmed for the direct final rule published January 29, 2015 (80 FR 4757).

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0058 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0058. 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 document.

• 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]

• 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:

Robert D. MacDougall, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5175, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On January 29, 2015 (80 FR 4757), the NRC published a direct final rule amending its regulations in § 72.214 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations by revising the NAC International MAGNASTOR® System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 4 to CoC No. 1031. Amendment No. 4 changes a limiting condition for operation in the technical specifications for transportable storage canister vacuum drying and helium backfill times, and corrects a typographical error. The NRC's approval of Amendment No. 4 does not authorize transportation.

In the direct final rule, the NRC stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become effective on April 14, 2015. The NRC did not receive any comments on the direct final rule. Therefore, this direct final rule will become effective as scheduled.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of March, 2015.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-07002 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2013-1032; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-121-AD; Amendment 39-18122; AD 2015-06-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-13-07 for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. AD 2011-13-07 requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to include a procedure to power off a radio-altimeter or revert to the correct radio-altimeter output. This new AD requires revising the AFM to include a simpler procedure to revert to the correct radio-altimeter output. This AD was prompted by an analysis which showed that AFM procedures could be simplified. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has procedures in the event of a radio-altimeter lock-up, which inhibits the display of warnings along with certain abnormal conditions, during the switch into landing mode during altitude cruise. If not corrected, this could result in the flightcrew being unaware of possible system failures that require immediate action by the flightcrew, leading to possible loss of control of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective May 1, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-1032; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-1032.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2011-13-07, Amendment 39-16730 (76 FR 36283, June 22, 2011). AD 2011-13-07 applied to all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2013 (78 FR 78292). The NPRM was prompted by an analysis which showed that AFM procedures could be simplified. The NPRM proposed to continue to require revising the AFM to include a procedure to power off a radio-altimeter or revert to the correct radio-altimeter output. The NPRM also proposed to require revising the AFM to include a simpler procedure to revert to the correct radio-altimeter output.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0208R2, dated May 22, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:

Several occurrences of untimely radio-altimeter lock-up have been reported, where the failed radio-altimeter (RA) indicated a negative distance to the ground despite the aircraft was flying at medium or high altitude.

A locked RA #1 leads to untimely inhibition of warnings that could be displayed along with certain abnormal conditions while the avionic system switches into landing mode during altitude cruise.

This condition, if not corrected, may cause the flight crew to be unaware of possible system failures that could require immediate actions, which could ultimately lead to loss of control of the aeroplane.

To address this unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation developed an Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) operational procedure that, in case of RA #1 lock-up, allows the crew to restore the system warning performance by depowering the RA #1. EASA issued AD 2009-0208 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2009-0208R3] to require application of that new abnormal procedure when RA #1 lock-up occurs. That EASA AD also prohibited dispatch of the aeroplane with any radio-altimeter inoperative.

Since issuance of EASA AD 2009-0208, Dassault Aviation developed Easy avionics load 10 which is embodied through Dassault Aviation production modification M0566 or in-service through Service Bulletin (SB) Falcon 7X n°100. This modification provides new features to display a “RA miscompare” flag on both Primary Display Units (PDU) and allows a commanded system reversion to the correct RA output.

Prompted by this modification, EASA issued AD 2009-0208R1 [ http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2009-0208R3], to allow not deactivating RA #1 in case lock-up conditions occurred in flight, for aeroplanes on which M0566 or SB Falcon 7X n°100 was embodied.

Since issuance of EASA AD 2009-0208R1, further analysis shows that, for aeroplanes with M0566 applied in production, or SB Falcon 7X N°100 applied in service, the RA#2 lock-up occurrence should be addressed through a commanded system reversion, now only contained in a simplified Falcon 7X AFM procedure 3-140-70A.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD revises EASA AD 2009-0208R1 to reduce the requirement to amend the AFM by deleting the reference to procedure 3-140-65B. In addition, Dassault Aviation have confirmed that all Falcon 7X have been or are being modified with Mod M0566 applied in production, or SB Falcon 7X n°100 applied in service. For this reason, paragraph (1) of this [EASA] AD has been deleted. Finally, many editorial changes have been made to align the writing of the AD with the current writing standards.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-1032-0002.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (78 FR 78292, December 26, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Remove Paragraph (g) of the Proposed AD (78 FR 78292, December 26, 2013)

Dassault requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (78 FR 78292, December 26, 2013) be removed if it is meant to be a retained action. Dassault stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD addresses the lock-up of the radio-altimeter #1 and paragraph (h) of the proposed AD addresses the radio-altimeter miscompare condition. Dassault noted that any significant discrepancy, such as a lock-up condition, will raise a miscompare flag. Dassault also stated that since paragraph (h) of the proposed AD generalizes the issue to encompass both radio-altimeters, paragraph (g) becomes superfluous and procedure 3-140-65 (Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD) no longer exists.

We do not agree to remove paragraph (g) of this AD. Paragraph (g) of this AD is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition until the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD are accomplished. Operators who complete the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD do not need to complete the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. We have not revised this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise a Figure To Allow Dispatch in Certain Configuration Conditions

Dassault requested that figure 2 of paragraph (h) of the proposed AD (78 FR 78292, December 26, 2013) be revised to allow dispatch with a failed radio-altimeter. Dassault noted that the FAA issued an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), which allows dispatch with one failed radio-altimeter if the airplane is equipped with the newer radio-altimeter having part number 066-01153-5001. Dassault proposed to limit the dispatch prohibition in figure 2 of paragraph (h) of the proposed AD only to those airplanes that are fitted with an older radio-altimeter design having part number 066-01153-4001, which it stated is more prone to lock-ups. Dassault reasoned that the change would bring consistency with the AMOC letter and eliminate a need for future AMOCs as the radio-altimeter design is revised.

We do not agree to revise figure 2 of paragraph (h) of this AD. This type of operational relief is only allowed through the master minimum equipment list (MMEL) which is not an aspect we provide in an AD. However, a global AMOC letter has been issued to allow dispatch of airplanes equipped with the newer radio-altimeter with part number 066-01153-5001 through the MMEL. As provided by paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of this AD, this AMOC is valid for all operators affected by this AD. Therefore, there is no need to revise this final rule to provide this relief.

Request To Refer to a Later Revision of Service Information

Dassault requested that the NPRM (78 FR 78292, December 26, 2013) be revised to refer to the latest revision of the Dassault Falcon 7X Airplane Flight Manual.

We agree. We have revised paragraph (h)(2) of this AD to refer to Dassault Falcon 7X Airplane Flight Manual, DGT105608, Revision 18, dated November 15, 2013, as an additional method of compliance.

“Contacting the Manufacturer” Paragraph in This AD

Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.

The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.

In the NPRM (78 FR 78292, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.

No comments were provided to the NPRM (78 FR 78292, December 26, 2013) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013). The commenter stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”

This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, the EASA, or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.

This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.

Other commenters to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's MCAI might have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.

Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.

We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we have provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Dassault Aviation issued Procedure 3-140-70A, “Avionics—Sensor miscompare (A/C with M566),” Issue 2, of Section 3—Abnormal Procedures, of the Dassault Falcon 7X Airplane Flight Manual, DGT 105608, Revision 15, dated January 30, 2012; and Procedure 3-140-70A, “Avionics—Sensor miscompare,” Issue 4, of Section 3—Abnormal Procedures, of the Dassault Falcon 7X Airplane Flight Manual, DGT105608, Revision 18, dated November 15, 2013. The service information describes procedures to revert to the correct radio-altimeter output. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

Conclusion

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 78292, December 26, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 78292, December 26, 2013).

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 35 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    AFM revision [retained actions from AD 2011-13-07, Amendment 39-16730 (76 FR 36283, June 22, 2011)] 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 None $85 $2,975 New AFM revision [new action] 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 None 85 2,975
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

    2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-1032; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-13-07, Amendment 39-16730 (76 FR 36283, June 22, 2011), and adding the following new AD: 2015-06-04 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-18122. Docket No. FAA-2013-0132; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-121-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 1, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-13-07, Amendment 39-16730 (76 FR 36283, June 22, 2011).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of untimely radio-altimeter lock-ups, where the failed radio-altimeter indicated a negative distance to the ground when the airplane was flying at medium or high altitude. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has procedures in the event of a radio-altimeter lock-up, which inhibits the display of warnings along with certain abnormal conditions, during the switch into landing mode during altitude cruise. If not corrected, this could result in the flightcrew being unaware of possible system failures that require immediate action by the flightcrew, leading to possible loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Retained Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2011-13-07, Amendment 39-16730 (76 FR 36283, June 22, 2011), with editorial changes. For airplanes on which M0566 or Dassault Service Bulletin Falcon 7X-100 has been accomplished: Within 14 days after July 27, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-13-07), revise the Limitations Section of the Dassault Falcon 7X AFM to include the statement in figure 1 to this paragraph. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM. When a statement identical to that in figure 1 to this paragraph has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM. Accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph, and after the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD has been done, before further flight, remove the revision required by this paragraph.

    Figure 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD—Retained AFM Language If radio-altimeter #1 lock-up conditions occur in flight, revert to the correct radio-altimeter output, in accordance with the instructions of Falcon 7X AFM procedure 3-140-65B and 3-140-70A. Dispatch of the airplane with any radio-altimeter inoperative is prohibited. (h) New Requirement of This AD: Revision of the AFM

    For airplanes on which M0566 or Dassault Service Bulletin Falcon 7X-100 has been accomplished: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Revise the Limitations Section of the Dassault Falcon 7X AFM to include the statement in figure 2 to this paragraph. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM. Doing this revision terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD and the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD must be removed. When a statement identical to that in figure 2 to this paragraph has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.

    Figure 2 to Paragraph (h)(1) of This AD—New AFM Language If radio-altimeter miscompare indication occurs in flight, revert to the correct radio-altimeter output, in accordance with the instructions of Falcon 7X AFM procedure 3-140-70A. Dispatch of the airplane with any radio-altimeter inoperative is prohibited.

    (2) Revise the Abnormal Procedures section to include Procedure 3-140-70A, “Avionics—Sensor miscompare (A/C with M566),” Issue 2, of Section 3—Abnormal Procedures, of the Dassault Falcon 7X Airplane Flight Manual, DGT 105608, Revision 15, dated January 30, 2012; or Procedure 3-140-70A, “Avionics—Sensor miscompare,” Issue 4, of Section 3—Abnormal Procedures, of the Dassault Falcon 7X Airplane Flight Manual, DGT105608, Revision 18, dated November 15, 2013; into the AFM.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2011-13-07, Amendment 39-16730 (76 FR 36283, June 22, 2011), are approved as alternative methods of compliance with this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0208R2, dated May 22, 2012, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-1032-0002.

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Procedure 3-140-70A, “Avionics—Sensor miscompare (A/C with M566),” Issue 2, of Section 3—Abnormal Procedures, of the Dassault Falcon 7X Airplane Flight Manual, DGT 105608, Revision 15, dated January 30, 2012.

    (ii) Procedure 3-140-70A, “Avionics—Sensor miscompare,” Issue 4, of Section 3—Abnormal Procedures, of the Dassault Falcon 7X Airplane Flight Manual, DGT105608, Revision 18, dated November 15, 2013.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 13, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06615 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0229; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-186-AD; Amendment 39-18123; AD 2015-06-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A300 and A310 series airplanes, and certain Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). This AD was prompted by a review of certain repairs, which revealed that the structural integrity of the airplane could be negatively affected if those repairs are not re-worked. This AD requires an inspection to identify certain repairs, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct certain repairs on the floor cross beams flange. If those repairs are not reworked, the structural integrity of the airplane could be negatively affected.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective May 1, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0229; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0229.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, ANM-116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98507-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A300 and A310 series airplanes, and certain Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2014 (79 FR 21413).

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0220, dated September 18, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 and A310 series airplanes, and certain Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

    In the frame of the Extended Service Goal (ESG) activity, all existing Structural Repair Manual (SRM) repairs were reviewed.

    This analysis, which consisted in new static and fatigue calculations, revealed that some repairs were no longer applicable to some specific areas.

    These repairs, if not reworked, could affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane. To address the repairs on the floor cross beams flange, Airbus issued Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) A300-53A0392, AOT A300-53A6171 and AOT A310-53A2135.

    To address this unsafe condition, and further to the implementation of the Aging Aircraft Safety Rule (AASR), this [EASA] Airworthiness Directive requires a [general visual] inspection of the floor cross beams flange at frame (FR)11 and FR12A to identify SRM repairs and, depending on findings, accomplishment of corrective action [reworking the SRM repairs].

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0229-0002. Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 21413, April 16, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Request To Change the Compliance Time Expression From Months to Flight Cycles

    United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that the compliance time proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 21413, April 16, 2014) for doing the general visual inspection be changed from a compliance time based on months to a compliance time based on the accumulation of flight cycles since certain structural repair manual (SRM) repairs were incorporated on an airplane. UPS stated that all documentation related to the NPRM indicated that the reported damage is fatigue-related; therefore the inspection compliance time should reflect a typical fatigue-related issue, which is expressed in flight cycles. UPS explained that it did not provide a proposed compliance time because it did not have data and suggested that the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) could establish compliance times for the instructions for continued airworthiness based on the data used in the SRM repair evaluation to determine extended service goals.

    We do not agree to change the compliance time expression from months to accumulated flight cycles since certain SRM repairs were done. The OEM does not have documentation for all the SRM repairs accomplished on each airplane, thus it is unable to establish compliance times because of the incomplete data. The FAA and EASA have determined that a 30-month compliance time is sufficient to accomplish the inspection and all applicable corrective actions. No change has been made to this AD regarding this issue. However, under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety.

    Request To Omit References to the AD in Repair Approvals

    UPS requested that paragraphs (h) and (i)(2) of the NPRM (79 FR 21413, April 16, 2014) be revised to omit the statement “[F]or a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD.” UPS stated that the FAA included this sentence in the NPRM because there is a “potential” for operators to do repairs that do not adequately address the unsafe condition. UPS commented that adding a reference to the applicable AD on repair documentation does not address the root cause of repair documentation availability. Previously approved repairs for an AD should have been vetted as part of the corrective action and AD development process. However, if a repair is not identified during that process, the operator is still responsible for adhering to the Airworthy Product provision in an AD. The Airworthy Product provision, in conjunction with FAA Advisory Circular 120-77, “Maintenance and Alteration Data,” dated October 7, 2002 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/199e798c7ee4347786256c4d004ae5dc/$FILE/AC%20120-77.pdf), provides sufficient guidance and clarification for repairs accomplished during compliance with the requirements of an AD.

    We concur with the commenter's request to remove from this AD the requirement that repair approvals specifically refer to this AD. Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD. The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA approved.

    In the NPRM (79 FR 21413, April 16, 2014), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include “the Design Approval Holder (DAH) with a State of Design Authority's design organization approval (DOA)” to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the AD.

    Comments were provided to another NPRM (Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (79 FR 21413, April 16, 2014)) about these proposed changes. UPS commented on that NPRM as follows: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”

    That comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request approval of an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA approved, which is also FAA approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.

    This clarification does not remove flexibility afforded previously by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the AD Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.

    Other commenters pointed out that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's MCAI may have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA may have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.

    Based on these comments, we removed the requirement from this AD that the DAH-provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a requirement in the future, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals consider the unsafe condition addressed in an AD. Any such requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.

    We have also decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or the “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we will provide the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH.

    Additional Changes to This AD

    In this AD, we have corrected a formatting error in the subparagraphs of paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM (79 FR 21413, April 16, 2014). The subparagraphs were incorrectly identified as (g)(1)(a), (g)(1)(b), and (g)(1)(c), and should have been identified as paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 21413, April 16, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 21413, April 16, 2014).

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information, which describes procedures for doing general visual inspections of the floor cross beams flange at certain frames and contacting the manufacturer for corrective actions:

    • Airbus All Operator Telex A300-53A0392, dated March 14, 2012 (for Model A300 series airplanes);

    • Airbus All Operator Telex A300-53A617, dated March 14, 2012 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes); and

    • Airbus All Operator Telex A310-53A2135, dated March 14, 2012 (for Model A310 series airplanes).

    This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 177 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $15,045, or $85 per product.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

    2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0229; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-06-05 Airbus: Amendment 39-18123. Docket No. FAA-2014-0229; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-186-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 1, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.

    (1) Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (2) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus Modification 12699 has been embodied in production.

    (3) Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a review of certain repairs, which revealed that the structural integrity of the airplane could be negatively affected if those repairs are not re-worked. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct certain repairs on the floor cross beams flange. If those repairs are not reworked, the structural integrity of the airplane could be negatively affected.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Inspection

    (1) Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a general visual inspection of the floor cross beams flange at FR11 and FR12A to determine which structural repair manual (SRM) repairs have been done, in accordance with the instructions of the service information specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of this AD, as applicable.

    (i) For Model A300 series airplanes: Airbus All Operator Telex (AOT) A300-53A0392, dated March 14, 2012.

    (ii) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes: Airbus AOT A300-53A6171, dated March 14, 2012.

    (iii) For Model A310 series airplanes: Airbus AOT A310-53A2135, dated March 14, 2012.

    (2) A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of the general visual inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD if the SRM repairs can be positively identified from that review.

    (h) Repair

    If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, it is determined that any SRM repair specified in paragraph 2 of the service information identified in paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of this AD, as applicable, has been done: Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, rework the repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98507-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-427-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Airworthiness Directive 2013-0220, dated September 18, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0229-0002.

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Airbus All Operator Telex A300-53A0392, dated March 14, 2012. The document number and date appear on only the first page of this document.

    (ii) Airbus All Operator Telex A300-53A6171, dated March 14, 2012. The document number and date appear on only the first page of this document.

    (iii) Airbus All Operator Telex A310-53A2135, dated March 14, 2012. The document number and date appear on only the first page of this document.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 14, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06583 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 305 RIN 3084-AB03 EnergyGuide Labels on Televisions AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) amends its Energy Labeling Rule (“Rule”) by publishing new ranges of comparability for required EnergyGuide labels on televisions.

    DATES:

    Effective July 15, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hampton Newsome, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580 (202-326-2889).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Commission issued the Energy Labeling Rule in 1979, 44 FR 66466 (Nov. 19, 1979) pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA”).1 The Rule covers several categories of major household products, including televisions. It requires manufacturers of covered products to disclose specific energy consumption or efficiency information (derived from Department of Energy (“DOE”) test procedures) at the point-of-sale. In addition, each label must include a “range of comparability” indicating the highest and lowest energy consumption or efficiencies for comparable models. The Commission updates these ranges periodically.

    1 42 U.S.C. 6294. EPCA also requires the Department of Energy (“DOE”) to set minimum efficiency standards and develop test procedures to measure energy use.

    II. Range Updates for Televisions

    The Commission amends its television ranges in section 305.17(f)(5) based on manufacturer data derived from the DOE test procedures and posted on the DOE Web site (https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms). Last year, the Commission issued changes to the television labeling requirements, including new reporting and testing provisions, to conform the FTC Rule to a new DOE test procedure (79 FR 19464 (April 9, 2014)). In that Notice, the Commission also discussed the possibility that it would revise the Rule's comparability ranges following the submission by manufacturers of new model data derived from the DOE test procedure.2 The Commission now updates those ranges, along with related sample labels. In addition, these amendments update the cost figure on the television label to 12 cents per kWh consistent with other labeled products.3 Manufacturers have until July 15, 2015 to begin using the ranges on their labels.

    2 The Commission also discussed the potential for new ranges in a notice published last summer (79 FR 34642, 34656 n.108 (June 18, 2014)).

    3 These amendments also make a minor, conforming change to the range categories in § 305.17 to reflect the scope of the DOE test procedure, which does not cover models with screen sizes smaller than 16 inches. See 79 FR at 19465 (Commission's discussion of this DOE change).

    III. Administrative Procedure Act

    The amendments published in this Notice are purely ministerial in nature and implement the Rule's requirement that representations for televisions be derived from DOE test procedures. See 16 CFR 305.5(d). Accordingly, the Commission has good cause under section 553(b)(B) of the APA to forgo notice-and comment procedures for these rule amendments. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). These technical amendments merely provide a routine, conforming change to the range and cost information required on EnergyGuide labels. The Commission therefore finds for good cause that public comment for these technical, procedural amendments is impractical and unnecessary.

    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis (5 U.S.C. 603-604) are not applicable to this proceeding because the amendments do not impose any new obligations on entities regulated by the Energy Labeling Rule. These technical amendments merely provide a routine change to the range information required on EnergyGuide labels. Thus, the amendments will not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 4 The Commission has concluded, therefore, that a regulatory flexibility analysis is not necessary, and certifies, under Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that the amendments announced today will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    4 5 U.S.C. 605.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The current Rule contains recordkeeping, disclosure, testing, and reporting requirements that constitute information collection requirements as defined by 5 CFR 1320.3(c), the definitional provision within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB has approved the Rule's existing information collection requirements through May 31, 2017 (OMB Control No. 3084 0069). The amendments now being adopted do not change the substance or frequency of the recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting requirements and, therefore, do not require further OMB clearance.

    List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305

    Advertising, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set out above, the Commission amends 16 CFR part 305 as follows:

    PART 305—ENERGY AND WATER USE LABELING FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS UNDER THE ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT (“ENERGY LABELING RULE”) 1. The authority citation for part 305 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 6294.

    2. In § 305.17, revise paragraphs (f)(4) and (5) to read as follows:
    § 305.17 Television labeling.

    (f) * * *

    (4) Estimated annual energy costs determined in accordance with § 305.5 of this part and based on a usage rate of 5 hours in on mode and 19 hours in standby (sleep) mode per day and an electricity cost rate of 12 cents per kWh.

    (5) The applicable ranges of comparability for estimated annual energy costs based on the labeled product's diagonal screen size, according to the following table:

    Screen size (diagonal) Annual energy cost ranges for televisions Low High 16-20″ (16.0 to 20.49″) $3 $4 21-23″ (20.5 to 23.49″) 4 5 24-29″ (23.5 to 29.49″) 4 7 30-34″ (29.5 to 34.49″) 6 13 35-39″ (34.5 to 39.49″) 7 13 40-44″ (39.5 to 44.49″) 5 21 45-49″ (44.5 to 49.49″) 6 24 50-54″ (49.5 to 54.49″) 8 34 55-59″ (54.5 to 59.49″) 8 34 60-64″ (59.5 to 64.49″) 12 48 65-69″ (64.5 to 69.49″) 10 51 69.5″ or greater 15 97
    3. In appendix L, revise Prototype Labels 8, 9, and 10 and Sample Labels in 14, 15, and 16 to read as follows: Appendix L to Part 305—Sample Labels BILLING CODE 6750-01-P ER27MR15.000 ER27MR15.001 ER27MR15.002 ER27MR15.003 ER27MR15.004 ER27MR15.005

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07070 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-C
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 882 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0802] Medical Devices; Neurological Devices; Classification of the Brain Injury Adjunctive Interpretive Electroencephalograph Assessment Aid AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final order.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the brain injury adjunctive interpretive electroencephalograph assessment aid into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the brain injury adjunctive interpretive electroencephalograph assessment aid's classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.

    DATES:

    This order is effective March 27, 2015. The classification was applicable on November 17, 2014.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jay Gupta, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G312, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2795, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.

    Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.

    In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device.

    On August 20, 2014, BrainScope Company, Inc., submitted a request for classification of the BrainScope Ahead 100, Models CV-100 and M-100 under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).

    In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1). FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

    Therefore, on November 17, 2014, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding § 882.1450.

    Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a brain injury adjunctive interpretive electroencephalograph assessment aid will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The device is assigned the generic name brain injury adjunctive interpretive electroencephalograph assessment aid, and it is identified as a prescription device that uses a patient's electroencephalograph (EEG) to provide an interpretation of the structural condition of the patient's brain in the setting of trauma. A brain injury adjunctive interpretive EEG assessment aid is for use as an adjunct to standard clinical practice only as an assessment aid for a medical condition for which there exists other valid methods of diagnosis.

    FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device, as well as the mitigation measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.

    Table 1—Brain Injury Adjunctive Interpretive Electroencephalograph Assessment Aid Risks and Mitigation Measures Identified risk Mitigation measure Adverse tissue reaction Biocompatibility.
  • Labeling.
  • Equipment malfunction leading to injury to user/patient (shock, burn, or mechanical failure) Electrical safety, thermal, and mechanical testing.
  • Electromagnetic compatibility testing.
  • Labeling.
  • Delay in treatment or unnecessary treatment due to hardware or software failure Performance testing.
  • Hardware and software verification, validation and hazard analysis.
  • Electromagnetic compatibility testing.
  • Technical parameters
  • Labeling.
  • False result due to incorrect artifact reduction Software verification and validation.
  • Labeling.
  • False result due to incorrect placement of electrodes Clinical performance testing.
  • Labeling.
  • False result when a brain injury adjunctive interpretive EEG assessment aid impacts the clinical decision Clinical performance testing.
  • Device design characteristics.
  • Labeling.
  • Use error Clinical performance testing.
  • Labeling.
  • FDA believes that the following special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness:

    • The technical parameters of the device, hardware and software, must be fully characterized and include the following information:

    ○ Hardware specifications must be provided. Appropriate verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

    ○ Software, including any proprietary algorithm(s) used by the device to arrive at its interpretation of the patient's condition, must be described in detail in the software requirements specification (SRS) and software design specification (SDS). Appropriate software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

    • The device parts that contact the patient must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.

    • The device must be designed and tested for electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility (EMC), thermal, and mechanical safety.

    • Clinical performance testing must demonstrate the accuracy, precision-repeatability and reproducibility, of determining the EEG-based interpretation, including any specified equivocal zones (cut-offs).

    • Clinical performance testing must demonstrate the ability of the device to function as an assessment aid for the medical condition for which the device is indicated. Performance measures must demonstrate device performance characteristics per the intended use in the intended use environment. Performance measurements must include sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with respect to the study prevalence per the device intended use.

    • The device design must include safeguards to ensure appropriate clinical interpretation of the device output (e.g., use in appropriate patient population, or for appropriate clinical decision).

    • The labeling and training information must include:

    ○ A warning that the device is not to be used as a stand-alone diagnostic.

    ○ A detailed summary of the clinical performance testing, including any adverse events and complications.

    ○ The intended use population and the intended use environment.

    ○ Any instructions technicians should convey to patients regarding the collection of EEG data.

    ○ Information allowing clinicians to gauge clinical risk associated with integrating the EEG interpretive assessment aid into their diagnostic pathway.

    ○ Information allowing clinicians to understand how to integrate the device output into their diagnostic pathway when the device is unable to provide a classification or final result.

    Brain injury adjunctive interpretive electroencephalograph assessment aid devices are prescription devices restricted to patient use only upon the authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use the device; see 21 CFR 801.109 (Prescription devices)). Prescription-use restrictions are a type of general controls as defined in section 513(a)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act.

    Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act, if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the brain injury adjunctive interpretive electroencephalograph assessment aid they intend to market.

    II. Environmental Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

    IV. Reference

    The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.

    1. [DEN140025]: De Novo Request per 513(f)(2) from BrainScope Company, Inc., dated August 20, 2014. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 882

    Medical devices, Neurological devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 882 is amended as follows:

    PART 882—NEUROLOGICAL DEVICES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 882 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.

    2. Add § 882.1450 to subpart B to read as follows:
    § 882.1450 Brain injury adjunctive interpretive electroencephalograph assessment aid.

    (a) Identification. A brain injury adjunctive interpretive electroencephalograph assessment aid is a prescription device that uses a patient's electroencephalograph (EEG) to provide an interpretation of the structural condition of the patient's brain in the setting of trauma. A brain injury adjunctive interpretive EEG assessment aid is for use as an adjunct to standard clinical practice only as an assessment aid for a medical condition for which there exists other valid methods of diagnosis.

    (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:

    (1) The technical parameters of the device, hardware and software, must be fully characterized and include the following information:

    (i) Hardware specifications must be provided. Appropriate verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

    (ii) Software, including any proprietary algorithm(s) used by the device to arrive at its interpretation of the patient's condition, must be described in detail in the software requirements specification (SRS) and software design specification (SDS). Appropriate software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

    (2) The device parts that contact the patient must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.

    (3) The device must be designed and tested for electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility (EMC), thermal, and mechanical safety.

    (4) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate the accuracy, precision-repeatability and reproducibility, of determining the EEG-based interpretation, including any specified equivocal zones (cutoffs).

    (5) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate the ability of the device to function as an assessment aid for the medical condition for which the device is indicated. Performance measures must demonstrate device performance characteristics per the intended use in the intended use environment. Performance measurements must include sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with respect to the study prevalence per the device intended use.

    (6) The device design must include safeguards to ensure appropriate clinical interpretation of the device output (e.g., use in appropriate patient population, or for appropriate clinical decision).

    (7) The labeling and training information must include:

    (i) A warning that the device is not to be used as a stand-alone diagnostic.

    (ii) A detailed summary of the clinical performance testing, including any adverse events and complications.

    (iii) The intended use population and the intended use environment.

    (iv) Any instructions technicians should convey to patients regarding the collection of EEG data.

    (v) Information allowing clinicians to gauge clinical risk associated with integrating the EEG interpretive assessment aid into their diagnostic pathway.

    (vi) Information allowing clinicians to understand how to integrate the device output into their diagnostic pathway when the device is unable to provide a classification or final result.

    Dated: March 23, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07010 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 66 [Docket ID: DOD-2011-OS-0099] RIN 0790-AI78 Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule updates policies and responsibilities for basic entrance qualification standards for enlistment, appointment, and induction into the Armed Forces and delegates the authority to specify certain standards to the Secretaries of the Military Departments. It establishes the age, aptitude, character/conduct, citizenship, dependents, education, medical, physical fitness, and other disqualifying conditions that are causes for rejection from military service. Other standards may be prescribed in the event of mobilization or national emergency. This rule sets standards designed to ensure that individuals under consideration for enlistment, appointment, and/or induction are able to perform military duties successfully, and to select those who are the most trainable and adaptable to Service life.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This rule is effective March 27, 2015. Comments must be received by May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dennis J. Drogo, (703) 697-9268.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary I. Purpose of This Regulatory Action

    This rule updates policies and responsibilities for basic entrance qualification standards for enlistment, appointment, and induction into the Armed Forces and delegates the authority to specify certain standards to the Secretaries of the Military Departments.

    II. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action

    (a) Establishes age, aptitude, character/conduct, citizenship, dependents, education, medical, physical fitness, and other disqualifying conditions that are causes for rejection from military service. Other standards may be prescribed in the event of mobilization or national emergency.

    (b) Sets standards designed to ensure that individuals under consideration for enlistment, appointment, and/or induction are able to perform military duties successfully and to select those who are the most trainable and adaptable to Service life.

    (c) Removes provisions related to homosexual conduct.

    III. Costs and Benefits of This Regulatory Action

    The benefit of publishing this interim final rule is that it establishes standards to ensure that those who are enlisted, appointed, or inducted are the best qualified to complete their prescribed training and the best able to adapt to the military life. Failure to maintain these standards would result in a high attrition of personnel and would significantly increase training costs. The success of today's All-volunteer military is dependent on this policy.

    Justification for Interim Final Rule

    This rule is being published as an interim final rule to provide required updates in DoD policy and procedures that impact the public. It has been almost 10 years since these policies and procedures have been updated. Some policy changes and court decisions have a great impact on the eligibility of potential applicants entry into the military. All language addressing homosexual conduct has been removed in accordance with the December 22, 2010, repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, which opened military service to homosexuals, and the subsequent United States vs. Windsor decision (570 U.S. 12, 133 S. Ct 2675 (2013)) which found section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. By removing all references to homosexuality, otherwise qualified applicants are now free to apply and enroll in a military academy without prejudice or fear of reprisal. This interim rule is required immediately to remove any legal and policy restrictions which would prevent a potential applicant from entry into a military based solely on their sexual orientation.

    It is important for DoD to have current and up-to-date enlistment, appointment, and induction standards, which are essential in defining the measures necessary to evaluate and qualify civilians for military service. A critical component of this update is the clarification of one of the underlying purposes of the enlistment, appointment, and induction standards which is to minimize entrance of persons who are likely to become disciplinary cases, security risks, or who are likely to disrupt good order, morale, and discipline. The Military Services are responsible for the defense of the Nation and should not be viewed as a source of rehabilitation for those who have not subscribed to the legal and moral standards of society at-large. The necessity of publishing these current standards, as an interim final rule, is vital to the DoD meeting its mission to man the All Volunteer Force with qualified citizens.

    Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct 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, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This interim final rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the requirements of these Executive Orders.

    Sec. 202, Public Law 104-4, “Unfunded Mandates Reform Act”

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This document will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.

    Public Law 96-354, “Regulatory Flexibility Act” (5 U.S.C. 601)

    The Department of Defense certifies that this interim final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

    Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

    It has been certified that 32 CFR part 66 does not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The following exiting clearances will be utilized:

    0701-0101—“Air Force ROTC College Scholarship Application” 0701-0150—“Air Force Recruiting Information Support System—Total Forces (AFRISS-TF)” 0702-0073—“U.S. Army ROTC 4-year College Scholarship Application” 0702-0111—“Army ROTC Referral Information” 0703-0020—“Enlistee Financial Statement” 0704-0006—“Request for Verification of Birth” 0704-0173—Record of Military Processing—Armed Forces of the United States” 0704-0413—“Medical Screening of Military Personnel” 0704-0415—“Application for Department of Defense Common Access Card—DEERS Enrollment”

    The Department will continue to review its processes to identify collection instruments and consider how these collection tools may be improved and make revisions accordingly. The Department welcomes comments on how you think we can improve on our information collection activities.

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism”

    Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This interim final rule will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 66

    Armed forces, Qualification standards.

    Accordingly 32 CFR part 66 is added to read as follows: PART 66—QUALIFICATION STANDARDS FOR ENLISTMENT, APPOINTMENT, AND INDUCTION Sec. 66.1 Purpose. 66.2 Applicability. 66.3 Definitions. 66.4 Policy. 66.5 Responsibilities. 66.6 Enlistment, appointment, and induction criteria. 66.7 Enlistment waivers. Authority:

    10 U.S.C. 504, 505, 520, 532, 12102, 12201, and 12205.

    § 66.1 Purpose.

    In accordance with the authority in DoD Directive 5124.02, “Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R))” (available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/512402p.pdf), this part:

    (a) Updates established policies and responsibilities for basic entrance qualification standards for enlistment, appointment, and induction into the Military Services and delegates the authority to specify certain standards to the Secretaries of the Military Departments.

    (b) Establishes the standards for age, aptitude, citizenship, dependents, education, medical, character/conduct, physical fitness, and other disqualifying conditions, which are cause for non-qualification for military service. Other standards may be prescribed in the event of national emergency.

    (c) Sets standards designed to ensure that individuals under consideration for enlistment, appointment, or induction are able to perform military duties successfully, and to select those who are the most trainable and adaptable to Service life.

    § 66.2 Applicability.

    This part applies to:

    (a) Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments (including the Coast Guard at all times, including when it is a Service in the Department of Homeland Security by agreement with that Department), the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (referred to collectively in this part as the “DoD Components”).

    (b) Applicants for initial enlistment into the Military Services Regular and Reserve Components.

    (c) Applicants for appointment as commissioned or warrant officers in the Regular and Reserve Components.

    (d) Applicants for reenlistment following release from active duty into subsequent Regular or Reserve Components (including the Army National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United States) after a period of more than 6 months has elapsed since discharge.

    (e) Applicants for contracting into the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), and all other Military Services special officer personnel procurement programs, including the Military Service Academies.

    (f) All individuals being inducted into the Military Services.

    § 66.3 Definitions.

    Unless otherwise noted, these terms and their definitions are for the purposes of this part.

    Adjudicating authority. Any government official who is empowered to make findings or determinations concerning an alleged criminal offense (adult and juvenile) and establish responsibility for commission of the offense. Examples include judges, courts, magistrates, prosecutors, hearing officers, military commanders (for Article 15 actions pursuant to 10 U.S.C. chapter 47, suspension of dependent privileges, or similar actions), probation officers, juvenile referees, and parole officers or boards.

    Adverse adjudication (adult or juvenile).

    (1) A finding, decision, sentence, or judgment by an adjudicating authority, against an individual, that was other than unconditionally dropped or dismissed or the individual was acquitted is considered adverse adjudication. If the adjudicating authority places a condition or restraint that leads to dismissal, drops the charges, acquits, or the records are later expunged, or the charge is dismissed after a certain period of time, the adjudication is still considered adverse. A suspension of sentence, not processed, or a dismissal after compliance with imposed conditions is also adverse adjudication. This includes fines and forfeiture of bond in lieu of trial.

    (2) A conviction for violating any federal law (including 10 U.S.C. chapter 47), or any State or municipal law or ordinance) is considered an adverse adjudication. For example, a shoplifter is reprimanded and required by the on-scene police officer, store security guard, or manager to pay for the item before leaving the store but is not charged, not found guilty, or is not convicted. In this situation, there is no adverse adjudication because no legal proceedings occurred and no adjudicating authority was involved.

    Conviction. The act of finding a person guilty of a crime, offense, or other violation of the law by an adjudicating authority.

    Dependent.

    (1) A spouse of an applicant for enlistment.

    (2) An unmarried adopted child or an unmarried step-child under the age of 18 living with the applicant.

    (3) An unmarried biological child of the applicant under the age of 18.

    (4) Any person living with the applicant who is, by law or in fact, dependent upon the applicant for support, or who is not living with the applicant and is dependent upon the applicant for over one-half of his or her support.

    Reserve components. Includes the Army National Guard of the United States, the Army Reserve, the Navy Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, the Air National Guard of the United States, the Air Force Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve.

    Restitution. Any compensation in time, labor, or money for the adverse effects of an offense as a result of agreements from judicial or prosecutorial involvement. For example, an individual is adversely adjudicated for vandalism and is ordered by the adjudicating authority to replace or repair the damaged property.

    Service review. A formal review of condition(s) or event(s) that, based on Service-specific standards, may make an applicant for enlistment ineligible to serve. Once a Service review is complete, the Service may grant an exception to policy to allow an individual to serve. These standards are subject to change at the discretion of the Service.

    Waiver. A formal request to consider the suitability for service of an applicant who because of inappropriate conduct, dependency status, current or past medical conditions, or drug use may not be qualified to serve. Upon the completion of a thorough examination using a “whole person” review, the applicant may be granted a waiver. The applicant must have displayed sufficient mitigating circumstances that clearly justify waiver consideration. The Secretaries of the Military Departments may delegate the final approval authority for all waivers.

    § 66.4 Policy.

    It is DoD policy to:

    (a) Use common entrance qualification standards for enlistment, appointment, and induction into the Military Services.

    (b) Avoid inconsistencies and inequities based on ethnicity, gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation in the application of these standards by the Military Services.

    (c) Judge the suitability of individuals to serve in the Military Services on the basis of their adaptability, potential to perform, and conduct.

    § 66.5 Responsibilities.

    (a) Under the authority, direction, and control of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (ASD(RA)) acts as an advisor to the USD(P&R) on the Reserve enlistment and appointment standards.

    (b) Under the authority, direction, and control of the USD(P&R), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (ASD(HA)) acts as an advisor to the USD(P&R) on the medical requirements of the standards in § 66.6.

    (c) Under the authority, direction, and control of the USD(P&R), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force Management (ASD(R&FM)):

    (1) Acts as an advisor to the USD(P&R) on the height and weight requirements of the standards in § 66.6.

    (2) Ensures the U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command assists the Military Services in implementing the standards in § 66.6 of this part.

    (d) The Secretaries of the Military Departments:

    (1) Oversee conformance with this part.

    (2) Recommend suggested changes to this part to the USD(P&R) as necessary.

    (3) Establish other Service-specific standards as necessary to implement this part.

    (4) Review all standards on an annual basis.

    (5) Establish procedures to grant waivers, accomplish reviews, and require individuals to meet the appropriate standards or be granted an exception pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 504(a).

    (6) Request approval from the USD(P&R) for generalized exceptions to these standards as permitted by law.

    (7) Use the standards in § 66.6 to determine the entrance qualifications for all individuals being enlisted, appointed, or inducted into any component of the Military Services.

    § 66.6 Enlistment, appointment, and induction criteria.

    (a) General eligibility criteria—(1) Entrance considerations. Accession of qualified individuals will be a priority when processing applicants for the Military Services.

    (2) Eligibility determination. Eligibility will be determined by the applicant's ability to meet all requirements of this part, to include obtaining waivers. Applicants will not be enlisted, appointed, or inducted unless all requirements of this part are met.

    (b) Basic eligibility criteria—(1) Age. (i) To be eligible for Regular enlistment, the minimum age for enlistment is 17 years and the maximum age is 42 years in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 505. The maximum age for a prior service enlistee is determined by adding the individual's years of prior service to age 42. The Secretary concerned will establish enlistment age standards for the Reserve Components in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 12102.

    (ii) Age limitations for appointment as a commissioned or warrant officer normally depend on the Military Service concerned. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 532, most persons appointed as commissioned officers must be able to complete 20 years of active commissioned service before their 62nd birthday to receive a Regular commission.

    (iii) In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 12201, a person will be at least 18 years of age for appointment as a Reserve Officer. The maximum age qualification for initial appointment as a Reserve Officer will not be less than 47 years of age for individuals in a health profession specialty designated by the Secretary concerned as a specialty critically needed in wartime.

    (iv) In accordance with 32 U.S.C. 313, to be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

    (v) In accordance with 32 U.S.C. 313, to be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must be at least 18 years of age and under 64 years of age.

    (2) Citizenship. (i) To be eligible for Regular or Reserve enlistment, an individual must meet one of the conditions outlined in 10 U.S.C. 504(b); however, the Secretary concerned may authorize the enlistment of a person not described in this section if the Secretary determines that such enlistment is vital to the national interest.

    (ii) To be eligible for appointment as a commissioned officer (other than as a commissioned warrant officer) in the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps, the individual must be a citizen of the United States as outlined in 10 U.S.C. 532. The Secretary of Defense (or the Secretary of Homeland Security for the Coast Guard) may waive the requirement of U.S. citizenship with respect to a person who has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, or for a United States national otherwise eligible for appointment as a cadet or midshipman in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2107(a), when the Secretary determines that the national security so requires, but only for an original appointment in a grade below the grade of major or lieutenant commander.

    (iii) To be eligible for appointment as a Reserve Officer in an armed force, the individual must be a citizen of the United States or lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. (also known as the “Immigration and Nationality Act”) or have previously served in the Military Services or in the National Security Training Corps as outlined under 10 U.S.C. 12201.

    (iv) To be eligible for enlistment in the National Guard, a person must meet one of the conditions in 10 U.S.C. 504(b); however, the Secretary concerned may authorize the enlistment of a person not described in this section if the Secretary determines that such enlistment is vital to the national interest.

    (v) To become an officer of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States, the individual must first be appointed to, and be federally recognized in, the same grade in the Army National Guard or the Air National Guard. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 12201, the individual must be a citizen of the United States or lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. or have previously served in Military Service or in the National Security Training Corps.

    (3) Education. (i) Possession of a high school diploma is desirable, although not mandatory, for enlistment in any component of the Military Services. 10 U.S.C. 520 states that a person who is not a high school graduate may not be accepted for enlistment in the Military Services unless the score of that person on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) is at or above the thirty-first percentile. 10 U.S.C. 520 also states that a person may not be denied enlistment in the Military Services solely because he or she does not have a high school diploma if his or her enlistment is needed to meet established strength requirements.

    (ii) Bearers of alternative credential (e.g., General Educational Development certificates and certificates of attendance) and non-graduates may be assigned lower enlistment priority based on first-term attrition rates for those credentials. DoD Instruction 1145.01, “Qualitative Distribution of Military Manpower” (available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/114501p.pdf) identifies the authority for establishing the qualitative distribution objectives for accessions.

    (iii) Educational requirements for appointment as a commissioned or warrant officer are determined by each Military Service. 10 U.S.C. 12205 establishes education requirements for certain Reserve appointments. Generally, and unless excepted under 10 U.S.C. 12205, a baccalaureate degree is required for appointment above the grade of first lieutenant in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps Reserves or lieutenant junior grade in the Navy Reserve, or to be federally recognized in a grade above the grade of first lieutenant as a member of the Army National Guard or Air National Guard. In addition, special occupations (e.g., physician or chaplain) may require additional vocational credentials as determined by the Secretary concerned.

    (4) Aptitude. (i) Overall aptitude requirements for enlistment and induction are based on applicant scores on the AFQT derived from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. Applicant scores are grouped into percentile categories. Persons who score in AFQT Category V (percentiles 1-9) are ineligible to enlist. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 520, the number of persons who enlist in any Armed Force during any fiscal year (i.e., accession cohort) who score in AFQT Category IV (percentiles 10-30) may not exceed 20 percent of the total number of persons enlisted by Service. DoD Instruction 1145.01 identifies the authority for establishing the qualitative distribution objectives for accessions.

    (ii) For officers and warrant officers, no single test or instrument is used as an aptitude requirement for appointment.

    (5) Medical. (i) In accordance with DoD Instruction 6130.03, “Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Military Services” (available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/613003p.pdf), the pre-accession screening process will be structured to identify any medical condition, including mental health, that disqualifies an applicant for military service.

    (ii) Individuals who fail to meet established medical standards, as defined in DoD Instruction 6130.03, may be considered for a medical waiver. Each Service's waiver authority for medical conditions will make a determination based on all available information regarding the issue or condition. Waiver requirements are outlined in § 66.7.

    (6) Physical fitness. (i) In accordance with DoD Instruction 1308.3, “DoD Physical Fitness and Body Fat Programs Procedures” (available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130803p.pdf), all individuals must meet the pre-accession height and weight standards as prescribed in Table 1 of DoD Instruction 1308.3.

    (ii) The Military Services may have additional physical fitness screening requirements.

    (7) Dependency status. (i) The Military Services may not enlist married individuals with more than two dependents under the age of 18 or unmarried individuals with custody of any dependents under the age of 18; however, the Secretary concerned may grant a waiver for particularly promising entrants. Waiver requirements are outlined in § 66.7 of this part.

    (ii) The Military Services will specify the circumstances under which individuals who have dependents may become commissioned officers or warrant officers; variations in policy may be affected by the commissioning source (e.g., Service Academies, ROTC, or Officer Candidate School).

    (8) Character/conduct. The underlying purpose of these enlistment, appointment, and induction standards is to minimize entrance of persons who are likely to become disciplinary cases, security risks, or who are likely to disrupt good order, morale, and discipline. The Military Services are responsible for the defense of the Nation and should not be viewed as a source of rehabilitation for those who have not subscribed to the legal and moral standards of society at-large. As a minimum, an applicant will be considered ineligible if he or she:

    (i) Is under any form of judicial restraint (bond, probation, imprisonment, or parole).

    (ii) Has a significant criminal record. 10 U.S.C. 504 prohibits any person who has been convicted of a felony from being enlisted in any of the Military Services; however, 10 U.S.C. 504 authorizes a waiver in meritorious cases. Except as limited by paragraph (b)(8)(iii) of this section, persons convicted of felonies may request a waiver to permit their enlistment. The waiver procedure is not automatic, and approval is based on each individual case. Waiver requirements are outlined in § 66.7 of this part.

    (iii) Has a State or federal conviction or a finding of guilty in a juvenile adjudication for a felony crime of rape, sexual abuse, sexual assault, incest, any other sexual offense, or when the disposition requires the person to register as a sex offender. In these cases, the enlistment, appointment, or induction will be prohibited and no waivers are allowed.

    (iv) Has been previously separated from the Military Services under conditions other than honorable or for the good of the Military Service concerned.

    (v) Has exhibited antisocial behavior or other traits of character that may render the applicant unfit for service.

    (vi) Receives an unfavorable final determination by the DoD Consolidated Adjudication Facility on a completed National Agency Check with Law and Credit (NACLC) or higher-level investigation, which is adjudicated to the National Security Standards in accordance with Executive Order 12968, during the accession process.

    (A) An applicant may be accessed (including shipping him or her to training or a first duty assignment) provided that a NACLC or higher-level investigation was submitted and accepted by the investigative service provider (OPM) and an advanced fingerprint was conducted, and OPM did not identify any disqualifying background information.

    (B) If NACLC adjudication is not completed until after accession, any additional disqualifying information identified during the adjudication should be transmitted to the appropriate personnel or human resource offices, as determined by the Services, for appropriate action.

    (9) Drugs and alcohol. A current or history of alcohol dependence, drug dependence, alcohol abuse, or other drug abuse is incompatible with military life and does not meet military standards in accordance with DoD Instruction 6130.03. Pursuant to DoD Instruction 1010.01, “Military Personnel Drug Abuse Testing Program (MPDATP)” (available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/101001p.pdf), the pre-accession screening process is structured to identify individuals with a history of drug (including pharmaceutical medications, illegal drugs and other substances of abuse) and alcohol abuse.

    (i) Drug use (to include illegal drugs, other illicit substances, and pharmaceutical medications), drug abuse, and alcohol abuse may be self-admitted by an applicant, discovered during the medical screening process, or identified by the drug and alcohol test (DAT), which is administered at the Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS) or other approved military processing facility.

    (ii) Current or history of alcohol dependence, drug dependence, alcohol abuse, or other drug abuse may be a medically disqualifying condition based on the standards in accordance with DoD Instruction 6130.03. The MEPS Chief Medical Officer, or equivalent, when the physical is not performed at MEPS, will make that determination based on all of the information available on a case-by-case basis. These instances will be treated as a medical disqualification and handled in accordance with the guidance provided in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(ii) of this section.

    (iii) Individuals who test positive for illegal drugs on the DAT, which is administered as part of the accession physical, will be disqualified. A waiver may be requested. Waiver requirements are outlined in § 66.7.

    (iv) Service qualification standards, regarding drugs and alcohol, may be more restrictive.

    § 66.7 Enlistment waivers.

    (a) Waiver requirements. In accomplishing whole person reviews of enlistment eligibility, the following categories and combinations of categories would require a favorable waiver determination by the Secretary of the Military Department concerned for the applicant to be considered qualified.

    (1) Medical waiver. A medical waiver is required for enlistment qualification of an applicant who has or may have had a disqualifying medical condition in accordance with DoD Instruction 6130.03.

    (2) Dependent waiver. A dependent waiver is required when an applicant is married with more than two dependents under the age of 18 or when an applicant is unmarried and has custody of any dependents under the age of 18.

    (3) Conduct waiver. In processing conduct waiver requests, the Military Services will require information about the “who, what, when, where, and why” of the offense in question; and letters of recommendation from responsible community leaders, such as school officials, clergy, and law enforcement officials, attesting to the applicant's character or suitability for enlistment.

    (i) A Conduct Waiver is required when the final finding of the courts or other adjudicating authority is a conviction or other adverse adjudication of:

    (A) One “major misconduct” offense, or;

    (B) Two “misconduct” offenses, or;

    (C) A pattern of misconduct.

    (1) One “misconduct” offense and four “non-traffic” offenses.

    (2) Five or more “non-traffic” offenses.

    (ii) Use the Table of this section to determine the appropriate level of offense and applicable code. See paragraph (b) of this section for additional guidance.

    (4) Drug waiver. A drug waiver is required when an applicant or enlistee is confirmed positive for the presence of drugs at the time of the original or subsequent physical examination (i.e., tests positive on the DAT at a MEPS or equivalent facility). Drug waivers for these applicants may be considered and granted or rejected only after the disqualification period established in section 6 of Enclosure 7 of DoD Instruction 1010.16, “Technical Procedures for the Military Personnel Drug Abuse Testing Program (MPDATP)” (available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/101016p.pdf) ends.

    (b) Classifying conduct offenses. The procedures that will be used in the classifying and coding of all conduct offenses are:

    (1) Initial classification. Align the offense that is the subject of adverse adjudication with an offense from the Table of this section. As an exception, any offense classified as a felony under State or federal jurisdiction will be treated as a major misconduct offense for DoD purposes regardless of where similar charges are listed.

    (2) Non-similar offenses. If unable to find a similar charge, the Military Services will:

    (i) Treat the offense as a major misconduct offense if the adjudicating authority can impose a maximum period of confinement that exceeds 1 year.

    (ii) Treat the offense as a misconduct offense if the adjudicating authority can impose a maximum period of confinement that exceeds 6 months but is not more than 1 year.

    (iii) Treat all other offenses as either other non-traffic offenses or traffic offenses, depending on the nature of the offense.

    Table to § 66.7—Conduct Waiver Codes

    Offense code Offense title TRAFFIC OFFENSES 100 Bicycle ordinance violation. 101 Blocking or retarding traffic. 102 Contempt of court for minor traffic offenses. 103 Crossing yellow line; driving left of center. 104 Disobeying traffic lights, signs, or signals. 105 Driving on shoulder. 106 Driving uninsured vehicle. 107 Driving with blocked vision and/or tinted window. 108 Driving with expired plates or without plates. 109 Driving with suspended or revoked license. 110 Driving without license. 111 Driving without registration or with improper registration. 112 Driving wrong way on one-way street. 113 Failure to appear for traffic violations. 114 Failure to comply with officer's directive. 115 Failure to have vehicle under control. 116 Failure to signal. 117 Failure to stop or yield to pedestrian. 118 Failure to submit report after accident. 119 Failure to yield right-of-way. 120 Faulty equipment such as defective exhaust, horn, lights, mirror, muffler, signal device, steering device, tail pipe, or windshield wipers. 121 Following too closely. 122 Hitchhiking. 123 Improper backing such as backing into intersection or highway, backing on expressway, or backing over crosswalk. 124 Improper blowing of horn. 125 Improper passing such as passing on right, passing in no-passing zone, passing stopped school bus, or passing pedestrian in crosswalk. 126 Improper turn. 127 Invalid or unofficial inspection sticker or failure to display inspection sticker. 128 Jaywalking. 129 Leaving key in ignition. 130 Leaving scene of accident (when not considered hit and run). 131 License plates improperly displayed or not displayed. 132 Operating overloaded vehicle. 133 Racing, dragging, or contest for speed. 134 Reckless, careless, or imprudent driving (considered a traffic offense when the fine is less than $300 and there is no confinement). Court costs are not part of a fine. 135 Reserved for future use. 136 Seat belt and/or child restraint violation. 137 Skateboard, roller skate, or inline skate violation. 138 Speeding. 139 Spilling load on highway. 140 Spinning wheels, improper start, zigzagging, or weaving in traffic. 141 Violation of noise control ordinance. 142 Other traffic offenses not specifically listed. 143 Reserved for future use. 144 Reserved for future use. NON-TRAFFIC OFFENSES 200 Altered driver's license or identification. 201 Assault (simple assault with fine or restitution of $500 or less and no confinement). 202 Carrying concealed weapon (other than firearm); possession of brass knuckles. 203 Check, worthless, making or uttering, with intent to defraud or deceive (less than $500). 204 Committing a nuisance. 205 Conspiring to commit misdemeanor. 206 Curfew violation. 207 Damaging road signs. 208 Discharging firearm through carelessness or within municipal limits. 209 Disobeying summons; failure to appear (other than traffic). 210 Disorderly conduct; creating disturbance; boisterous conduct. 211 Disturbing the peace. 212 Drinking alcoholic beverages on public transportation. 213 Drunk in public. 214 Dumping refuse near highway. 215 Failure to appear, contempt of court (all offenses except felony proceedings). 216 Failure to appear, contempt of court (felony proceedings). 217 Failure to stop and render aid after accident. 218 Fare and/or toll evasion. 219 Harassment, menacing, or stalking. 220 Illegal betting or gambling; operating illegal handbook, raffle, lottery, or punchboard; cockfighting. 221 Indecent exposure. 222 Indecent, insulting, or obscene language communicated directly or by telephone to another person. 223 Jumping turnstile (to include those States that adjudicate jumping a turnstile as petty larceny). 224 Juvenile adjudications such as beyond parental control, incorrigible, runaway, truant, or wayward. 225 Killing a domestic animal. 226 Littering. 227 Loitering. 228 Malicious mischief (fine or restitution of $500 or less and no confinement). 229 Pandering. 230 Poaching. 231 Purchase, possession, or consumption of alcoholic beverages or tobacco products by minor. 232 Removing property from public grounds. 233 Removing property under lien. 234 Robbing an orchard. 235 Shooting from highway. 236 Throwing glass or other material in roadway. 237 Trespass (non-criminal or simple). 238 Unlawful assembly. 239 Unlawful manufacture, sale, possession, or consumption of liquor in public place. 240 Unlawful use of long-distance telephone calling card. 241 Using or wearing unlawful emblem and/or identification. 242 Vagrancy. 243 Vandalism (fine or restitution of $500 or less and no confinement). 244 Violation of fireworks laws. 245 Violation of fish and game laws. 246 Violation of leash laws. 247 Violation of probation. 248 Other non-traffic offenses not specifically listed. 249 Reserved for future use. MISCONDUCT OFFENSES 300 Aggravated assault, fighting, or battery (more than $500 fine or restitution or confinement). 301 Carrying of weapon on school grounds (other than firearm). 302 Concealment of or failure to report a felony. 303 Contributing to delinquency of minor. 304 Crimes against the family (non-payment of court-ordered child support and/or alimony). 305 Criminal mischief (more than $500 fine or restitution or confinement). 306 Criminal trespass. 307 Desecration of grave. 308 Domestic battery and/or violence not considered covered by 18 U.S.C. 922, referred to in this issuance as the “Lautenberg Amendment”). 309 Driving while drugged or intoxicated; driving while ability impaired; permitting driving under the influence. 310 Illegal or fraudulent use of a credit card or bank card (value less than $500). 311 Larceny or conversion (value less than $500). 312 Leaving scene of an accident or hit and run. 313 Looting. 314 Mailbox destruction. 315 Mailing of obscene or indecent matter (including e-mail). 316 Possession of marijuana or drug paraphernalia. 317 Prostitution or solicitation for prostitution. 318 Reckless, careless, or imprudent driving (considered a misdemeanor when the fine is $300 or more or when confinement is imposed; otherwise, considered a minor traffic offense). 319 Reckless endangerment. 320 Resisting arrest or eluding police. 321 Selling or leasing weapons. 322 Stolen property, knowingly receiving (value less than $500). 323 Throwing rocks on a highway; throwing missiles at sporting events; throwing objects at vehicles. 324 Unauthorized use or taking of a vehicle or conveyance from family member; joy riding. 325 Unlawful carrying of firearms or carrying concealed firearm. 326 Unlawful entry. 327 Use of telephone, Internet, or other electronic means to abuse, annoy, harass, threaten, or torment another. 328 Vandalism (more than $500 fine or restitution or confinement). 329 Willfully discharging firearm so as to endanger life; shooting in public. 330 Other misconduct offenses not specifically listed. 331 Reserved for future use. 332 Reserved for future use. MAJOR MISCONDUCT OFFENSES 400 Aggravated assault; assault with dangerous weapon; maiming. 401 Arson. 402 Attempt to commit a felony. 403 Breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. 404 Bribery. 405 Burglary. 406 Carjacking. 407 Carnal knowledge of a child. 408 Carrying of weapon on school grounds (firearm). 409 Check, worthless, making or uttering, with intent to defraud or deceive (over $500). 410 Child abuse. 411 Child pornography. 412 Conspiring to commit a felony. 413 Criminal libel. 414 Domestic battery and/or violence as defined in the Lautenberg Amendment. (Waiver not authorized if applicant was convicted of this offense.) 415 Embezzlement. 416 Extortion. 417 Forgery, knowingly uttering or passing forged instrument (except for altered identification cards). 418 Grand larceny or larceny (value of $500 or more). 419 Grand theft auto. 420 Hate crimes. 421 Illegal and/or fraudulent use of a credit card, bank card, or automated card (value of $500 or more). 422 Indecent acts or liberties with a child; molestation. 423 Indecent assault. 424 Kidnapping or abduction. 425 Mail matter; abstracting, destroying, obstructing, opening, secreting, stealing, or taking (not including the destruction of mailboxes). 426 Manslaughter. 427 Murder. 428 Narcotics or habit-forming drugs, wrongful possession or use (not including marijuana). 429 Negligent or vehicular homicide. 430 Perjury or subornation of perjury. 431 Possession or intent to use materials in a manner to make a bomb or explosive device to cause bodily harm or destruction of property. 432 Public record; altering, concealing, destroying, mutilating, obligation, or removing. 433 Rape, sexual abuse, sexual assault, criminal sexual abuse, incest, or other sex crimes. (See paragraph (b)(8)(iii) of § 66.6 of this part; waivers for these offenses are not authorized.) 434 Riot. 435 Robbery (including armed). 436 Sale, distribution, or trafficking of cannabis (marijuana) or any other controlled substance (including intent). 437 Sodomy (only when it is nonconsensual or involves a minor). 438 Stolen property, knowingly received (value of $500 or more). 439 Terrorist threats (including bomb threats). 440 Violation of civil rights. 441 Other major misconduct offenses not specifically listed. 442 Reserved for future use. 443 Reserved for future use.
    Dated: March 23, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06909 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0018] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Charleston Race Week, Charleston Harbor; Charleston, SC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on the waters of Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina during Charleston Race Week, a series of sailboat races. The races are scheduled to take place on April 17, 2015 through April 19, 2015. Approximately 300 sailboats are anticipated to participate in the races. The special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States during the races. The special local regulation consists of three race areas. Except for those persons and vessels participating in the sailboat races, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within any of the race areas unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on April 17, 2015 through April 19, 2015. This rule will be enforced daily from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents indicated in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0018. 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, call or email Chief Warrant Officer Christopher Ruleman, telephone (843) 740-3184, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston, 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. Regulatory History and Information

    On February 19, 2015, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulation; Charleston Race Week, Charleston, SC in the Federal Register. We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to insure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during three Charleston Race Week sailboat races.

    C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    From April 17, 2015 through April 19, 2015, Charleston Ocean Racing Association will host three sailboat races on Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina during Charleston Race Week. Approximately 300 sailboats will be participating in the three races. The rule establishes a special local regulation on certain waters of Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina. The special local regulation will be enforced daily from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on April 17, 2015 through April 19, 2015. The special local regulation consists of the following three race areas.

    1. Race Area #1. All waters encompassed within an 800 yard radius of position 32°46′23″ N, 79°55′11″ W.

    2. Race Area #2. All waters encompassed within a 900 yard radius of position 32°45′54″ N, 79°54′41″ W.

    3. Race Area #3. All waters encompassed within a 900 yard radius of position 32°46′09″ N, 79°53′52″ W.

    Except for those persons and vessels participating in the sailboat races, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within any of the race areas unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of the race areas may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race areas is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    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 economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) Although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement periods; (2) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local regulation 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 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 the waters of Charleston Harbor encompassed within the three regulated areas between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., from April 17, 2015 through April 19, 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.

    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 INTFORMATION 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 an 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 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 concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. An environmental analysis checklist and a Categorical Exclusion Determination were completed for this event. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) 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 rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add a temporary § 100.35T07-0018 to read as follows:
    § 100.35T07-0018 Special Local Regulation; Charleston Race Week, Charleston Harbor; Charleston, SC.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following regulated areas are established as a special local regulation. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

    (1) Race Area #1. All waters encompassed within an 800 yard radius of position 32°46′23″ N, 79°55′11″ W.

    (2) Race Area #2. All waters encompassed within a 900 yard radius of position 32°45′54″ N, 79°54′41″ W.

    (3) Race Area #3. All waters encompassed within a 900 yard radius of position 32°46′09″ N, 79°53′52″ W.

    (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 Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Except for those person and vessels participating in the sailboat races, all persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within any of the three regulated areas unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of the regulated areas may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of the regulated areas is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced daily from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. from April 17, 2015 through April 19, 2015.

    Dated: March 12, 2015. B. D. Falk, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06950 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0191] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the upper deck of the Steel Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.1, at Portland, OR. This deviation is necessary to accommodate the annual Bridge to Brews 8K and 10K run. This deviation allows the upper deck of the Steel Bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position and need not open for marine traffic.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 8:45 a.m. until 10:40 a.m. on April 12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0191] 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 Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has requested that the upper deck of the Steel Bridge remain closed-to-navigation to accommodate the annual Bridge to Brews 8K and 10K run. The Steel Bridge crosses the Willamette River at mile 12.1 and is a double-deck lift bridge with a lower lift deck and an upper lift deck which operate independent of each other. When both decks are in the down position the bridge provides 26 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. When the lower deck is in the up position the bridge provides 71 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0. This deviation does not affect the operating schedule of the lower deck which opens on signal. Under normal conditions the upper deck of the Steel Bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897(c)(3)(ii) which states that from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday one hour advance notice shall be given for draw openings, and at all other times two hours advance notice shall be given to obtain an opening. This deviation period is from 8:45 a.m. until 10:40 a.m. on April 12, 2015. The deviation allows the upper deck of the Steel Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 12.1, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position and need not open for maritime traffic from 8:45 a.m. until 10:40 a.m. on April 12, 2015.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices 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. Waterway usage on this stretch of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.

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

    Dated: March 23, 2015. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07019 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0205] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Willamette River, Portland, OR 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 Broadway Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 11.7, at Portland, OR. The deviation is necessary to accommodate the Portland Race for the Roses event. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the down, or closed, position to facilitate the safe movement of event participants across the bridge.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 4 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on April 19, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0205] 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 Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Multnomah County requested that the Broadway Bascule Bridge remain closed to vessel traffic to facilitate the safe, uninterrupted roadway passage of participants in the Portland Race for the Roses event. The Broadway Bridge crosses the Willamette River at mile 11.7 and provides 90 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the closed-to-navigation position.

    Under normal conditions, this bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.897, which allows for the bridge to remain closed between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and also requires advance notification when a bridge opening is needed. This deviation allows the bascule span of the Broadway Bridge across the Willamette River, mile 11.7, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position and need not open for maritime traffic from 4:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. April 19, 2015. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.897 at all other times. Waterway usage on this stretch of the Willamette River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices 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: March 23, 2015. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07020 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0046] Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Snake Creek, Islamorada, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Snake Creek Bridge across Snake Creek, at Islamorada, FL. This deviation will test a change to the drawbridge operation schedule to determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is needed. This deviation will allow Snake Creek Bridge to open once an hour between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Local officials are requesting this action to assist in reducing traffic caused by bridge openings.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from March 27, 2015 to 6 p.m. on July 14, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 8 a.m. on March 16, 2015, until March 27, 2015.

    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 July 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0046 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 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 temporary deviation, call or email Coast Guard Sector Key West Waterways Management Division; telephone 305-292-8772, 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:

    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 (USCG-2015-0046), 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 (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 via http://www.regulations.gov, 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 phone 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, type the docket number [USCG-2015-0046] 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 them 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-2015-0046) 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

    As of now, we do not plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a request for one using one of the three methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why one 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. Basis and Purpose

    The Snake Creek Bridge in Islamorada, Florida, owned by the Florida Department of Transportation, has a vertical clearance of 27 feet in the closed position. The normal operating schedule as published in 33 CFR 117.331 is—“The draw of the Snake Creek bridge, at Islamorada, Florida, shall open on signal, except that from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour.” This schedule has been in effect since 2001.

    For the following reasons the Coast Guard is testing a new schedule for the Snake Creek Bridge:

    1. As reported by village and city councils, vessel traffic has negatively impacted Islamorada and surrounding communities. This temporary deviation is intended to test a new bridge operation schedule to reduce vehicular traffic caused by bridge openings during peak travel times.

    2. On January 8-10, 2013, the Florida Department of Transportation conducted a traffic monitoring study 1400 feet south of the Snake Creek Bridge on US-1. The study found peak traffic volumes occurring at 08:45 a.m. and between 12:15 p.m. and 15:15 p.m.

    The types of vessels navigating Snake Creek include sport fishing vessels and catamaran sailboats.

    This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on March 16, 2015 until 6 p.m. on July 14, 2015. This deviation will allow the Snake Creek Bridge in Islamorada, Florida to open on the top of the hour from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

    During the test deviation, vessels may signal the bridge to open on the top of the hour from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

    Any vessel that can safely transit under the Snake Creek Bridge while closed may continue to navigate under the bridge during this deviation.

    As an alternate route, vessel operators may consider the use of Channel Five, a navigable channel above Long Key, Florida 5.7 nautical miles southwest of Snake Creek Bridge. The fixed US-1 bridge has a vertical clearance of 65 feet.

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

    Dated: March 6, 2015. Barry Dragon, U.S. Coast Guard, Bridge Administrator, Seventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06949 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0189] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Vessel Fire and Escort, Port of New York, NJ, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of the Port of New York for the transit of the M/V GREY SHARK. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the transit of the vessel in distress due to a shipboard fire and ongoing damage control operations. Entering into, transiting through, remaining, anchoring or mooring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) New York.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from March 27, 2015 until April 1, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, March 18, 2015 until April 1, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0189]. 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 LT Douglas Neumann, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York, (718) 354-4154, [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 A. Regulatory History and Information

    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 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the safety zone is required for an emergency response to escort the vessel into port after a shipboard fire, for which the Coast Guard had no advance notice. Therefore publishing an NPRM and taking public comments prior to issuing a rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones.

    On March 17, 2015 U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York was made aware that the M/V Grey Shark intended to enter the Port of New York after suffering a shipboard fire and encountering rough weather. The M/V Grey Shark was placed under tow and escorted by the Coast Guard Cutter Seneca to Gravesend Bay Anchorage at the mouth of the Port of New York until the vessel proceeds to its final destination to safely mitigate the fire and ongoing damage control operations. After examination of the facts by Coast Guard personnel, it was determined by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector New York, that Coast Guard emergency response was necessary to protect the public and environment from a potential hazard to navigation.

    C. Discussion of the Temporary Final Rule

    For the reasons discussed above, the COTP is establishing a temporary safety zone of 150 yards around the M/V Grey Shark as the vessel proceeds to its final destination to safely mitigate the fire and ongoing damage control operations. No vessel may enter, transit, moor, or anchor within safety zone during the period of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative. The COTP will cause public notifications to be made by all appropriate means including but not limited to 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 rule is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The safety zone will be relatively short in duration and covers only a small portion of the navigable waterways. Furthermore, vessels may transit the navigable waterway outside of the safety zone. Moreover, vessels desiring entry into the safety zone may be authorized to do so by the COTP or a COTP's designated representative. Advanced public notifications will also be made to the local maritime community by 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in Gravesend Bay Anchorage.

    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for a limited period of time. Vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone.

    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 INTFORMATION 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 an 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 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 rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. 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 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; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T01-0189 to read as follows:
    § 165.T01-0189 Safety Zone; M/V Grey Shark, New York Harbor.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: 150 yards from the M/V Grey Shark.

    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This rule will be effective and enforced from 7:00 p.m. on March 17, 2015 to 11:59 p.m. on April 1, 2015.

    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section: A “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the COTP, Sector New York, to act on his behalf. 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. “Official patrol vessels” may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP Sector New York. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.

    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply.

    (2) In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, New York

    (3) Operators of vessels desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone should contact the Sector New York Vessel Traffic Center via VHF channel 16 to obtain permission to do so.

    (4) Any vessel given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Sector New York or a designated on-scene representative.

    (5) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. G. Loebl, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07139 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0067] Annual Safety Zones in the Eighth Coast Guard District AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the RiverFest fireworks safety zone on the Neches River in Port Neches, TX from 8:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on May 2, 2015. This action is necessary to protect persons from the hazards associated with a fireworks display. During the enforcement period no person or vessel may enter the safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Port Arthur or his designated on-scene Patrol Commander.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 3, number 1 will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on May 2, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Scott Whalen, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, TX; telephone 409-719-5086, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a 500-yard safety zone for the RiverFest fireworks display in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 3, number 1 from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on May 2, 2015. While the location of the display is in the same general area as currently listed in 33 CFR 165.801, for this year only the fireworks display will be set off from land located along the Neches River near the approximate position of 30°00′05.6″ N 093°57′25.75″ W (NAD 83).

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.801, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene Patrol Commander. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede participants or official patrol 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 165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners, Safety Marine Information Broadcasts, and Marine Safety Information Bulletins.

    If the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene Patrol Commander determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: March 12, 2015. R.S. Ogrydziak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Port Arthur.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07140 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0634; FRL-9925-17-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Plan Approval and Operating Permit Fees 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 Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP). This proposed revision pertains to minor editorial revisions to Pennsylvania's existing plan approval and operating permit fee rules. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on May 26, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by April 27, 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-2014-0634 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-2014-0634, Dave Campbell, Associate Director, Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

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

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0634. 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 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gerallyn Duke, (215) 814-2084, or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 11, 2014, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection submitted a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for minor clarifying amendments to Pennsylvania's existing air permit fee rule.

    I. Background

    Section 110(a)(2)(L) of the CAA requires SIPs to include requirements that the owner or operator of each major stationary source pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required by the CAA, fees sufficient to cover reasonable costs of acting on the permit as well as implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of the permit. EPA approved Pennsylvania's plan approval and operating permit fee regulation at 25 PA Code 127.701-127.707 into the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with section 110 of the CAA, on July 30, 1996. 61 FR 39595.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The February 11, 2014 revision amends 25 PA Code 127.701 to clarify that permit fees paid to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection by owners and operators of certain stationary sources are deposited into the Clean Air Fund which was previously established under section 9 of the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act. Minor editorial changes to 25 PA Code 127.701 also are included to clarify that plan approval and operating permit fees collected to implement title V requirements shall be made payable to the “Pennsylvania Clean Air Fund.”

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Pennsylvania SIP revision submitted on February 11, 2014 pertaining to payment of air permit fees to the “Pennsylvania Clean Air Fund” and requirements to deposit such fees in a restricted revenue account within the Clean Air Fund. The February 11, 2014 SIP revision is in accordance with requirements in section 110(a)(2)(L) 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 May 26, 2015 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 27, 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.

    IV. 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 this Pennsylvania SIP revision regarding amendments to 25 PA Code 127.701, as discussed in section II of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 26, 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 pertaining to minor editorial revisions to Pennsylvania's existing title V fee rule may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 10, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    Therefore, 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 NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (c)(1) is amended by revising the entry “Section 127.701” to read as follows:
    § 52.2020 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (1) EPA-Approved Pennsylvania Regulations and Statutes State citation Title/Subject State effective date EPA Approval date Additional explanation/§ 52.2063 citation *         *         *         *         *         *         * Subchapter I—Plan Approval and Operating Permit Fees Section 127.701 General provisions 12/14/13 3/27/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Paragraphs (b) and (c) revised. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-06968 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0342; FRL-9925-16-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision: Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide Best Available Retrofit Technology Limits for the Cheswick Power Plant AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). This SIP revision addresses the sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for Boiler Number 1 of the Cheswick Generating Station (Cheswick) in Allegheny County. EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the SIP revision for Cheswick's SO2 and NOX BART requirements on the basis that the revision corrects an error in the SIP and strengthens the Pennsylvania SIP, while EPA is also finalizing a limited disapproval of this part of the SIP revision because the SIP revision relies on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and not the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) which has replaced CAIR. This final action is in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules for BART.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on April 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0342. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. Section 169A of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution” and requires SIPs for states whose emissions may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas to contain emission limits, compliance schedules and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas.1 A regional haze SIP generally must include, among other measures, source-specific BART emission limits for each source subject to BART. A detailed discussion of the requirements of the regional haze program can be found in our earlier notice proposing action on Pennsylvania's regional haze SIP. See 77 FR 3984 (January 26, 2012).

    1 EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 169A are located at 40 CFR 51.308 and require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal in CAA section 169A.

    Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA made such a demonstration for the CAIR.2 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provided that states participating in the CAIR cap and trade program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR part 97, do not require affected BART eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). EPA subsequently determined that the trading programs in CSAPR, which was promulgated to replace CAIR, would achieve greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART and could also serve as an alternative to source-by-source BART. See 77 FR 33641 (June 7, 2012).3

    2 CAIR required certain states like Pennsylvania to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX that significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5 and ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR was later found to be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and the rule was remanded to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The court left CAIR in place until replaced by EPA with a rule consistent with its opinion. Id.

    3 CSAPR was proposed by EPA to replace CAIR and to help states reduce air pollution and attain CAA standards. See 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010) (proposal) and 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (final rule). The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued a decision in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), vacating CSAPR and keeping CAIR in place pending the promulgation of a valid replacement rule. Subsequently, on April 29, 2014, the United States Supreme Court reversed the August 21, 2012 opinion of the D.C. Circuit which had vacated CSAPR and remanded the matter to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). After the Supreme Court's decision, EPA filed a motion to lift the stay of CSAPR and asked the D.C. Circuit to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines by three years, so that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions budgets apply in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion and lifted the stay on CSAPR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. EPA views the D.C. Circuit's October 23, 2014 Order as also granting EPA's request to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines. EPA commenced implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015. 79 FR 71663 (Dec. 3, 2014) (interim final rule revising CSAPR compliance deadlines).

    On December 20, 2010, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP to address regional haze as required by the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308. At the time of the development and submission of Pennsylvania's December 20, 2010 regional haze SIP submission, EPA had not yet promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR. On July 13, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval of the Pennsylvania regional haze SIP. 77 FR 41279. Our approval was limited due to Pennsylvania's reliance upon CAIR for certain regional haze requirements including BART for EGUs. On June 7, 2012, EPA had also finalized the limited disapproval of Pennsylvania's regional haze SIP (and other states' regional haze SIPs that relied similarly on CAIR) due to its reliance on CAIR as EPA had issued the CSAPR to replace CAIR at that time. 77 FR 33641. On June 7, 2012, EPA also finalized a limited FIP for Pennsylvania and other states, which merely substituted reliance on EPA's more recent CSAPR NOX and SO2 trading programs for EGUs for the SIP's reliance on CAIR.4 See 77 FR 33641.

    4 In response to a petition for review of EPA's limited approval of the Pennsylvania regional haze SIP in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, EPA successfully moved for a voluntary remand without vacatur. On April 30, 2014, EPA reissued its final limited approval of the Pennsylvania SIP to implement the Commonwealth's regional haze program for the first planning period through 2018. 79 FR 24340.

    For the December 20, 2010 regional haze SIP, the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) had performed a BART analysis for Cheswick, a Pennsylvania EGU. In the May 4, 2009 Cheswick BART review memo, ACHD stated it performed its BART analysis in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e) and 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule (BART Guidelines).5 The May 4, 2009 Cheswick BART review memo was included in Pennsylvania's December 20, 2010 regional haze SIP (in Appendix J) and specifically stated that SO2 and NOX limits were not considered in the memo since the source was participating in CAIR. The May 4, 2009 BART Review Memo for Cheswick and the December 20, 2010 regional haze SIP submission also contained an error concerning the recommended particulate matter (PM) BART for Cheswick.

    5 The BART Guidelines provide a process for making BART determinations that states and local agencies can use in implementing the regional haze BART requirements on a source-by-source basis, as provided in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1).

    The December 20, 2010 regional haze SIP submission explicitly provided that BART for Pennsylvania EGUs was participation in CAIR; however, the SIP submission incorrectly identified SO2 and NOX BART emission limits for Cheswick in error.

    II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On March 25, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through PADEP submitted a SIP revision to revise the incorrect PM BART emission limit for Cheswick's Boiler No. 1 and to remove the errant inclusion of the BART SO2 and NOX emission limits for Cheswick's Boiler No. 1 from the regional haze SIP because Pennsylvania intended CAIR as SO2 and NOX BART for all EGUs including Cheswick. EPA has corrected the PM BART error in a separate rulemaking. See 80 FR 2834 (January 21, 2015). On January 21, 2015 (80 FR 2841), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania proposing limited approval and limited disapproval of this SIP revision to correct the SO2 and NOX BART for Cheswick. As explained in detail in the NPR, EPA proposed a limited approval to the March 25, 2014 SIP revision to the Cheswick SO2 and NOX BART limits included in the Pennsylvania regional haze SIP because the removal of the specific SO2 and NOX emission limits corrects an error in the regional haze SIP and strengthens the Pennsylvania SIP overall through replacing the incorrect BART limits with Cheswick's participation in an emissions trading program. EPA proposed a limited disapproval to the portion of the SIP revision addressing SO2 and NOX BART for Cheswick because the revision relied on replacing the specific SO2 and NOX limits with CAIR which the D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA and which EPA replaced with CSAPR. EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015 as the emissions trading program for SO2 and NOX for EGUs in certain states including Pennsylvania following the D.C. Circuit's lifting of the stay on CSAPR. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. See also 79 FR 71663 (interim final rule revising CSAPR compliance deadlines).

    Although CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must promulgate a FIP within two years after disapproving a SIP submission in whole or in part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the deficiencies, EPA believes our limited disapproval of the March 25, 2014 SIP submission does not result in any new FIP obligation for EPA because we already promulgated a FIP on June 7, 2012 to address the identified deficiency (replacing CAIR with CSAPR for SO2 and NOX BART for Pennsylvania EGUs). Thus, as explained in the NPR, the June 7, 2012 FIP fully addresses Cheswick's SO2 and NOX BART because Cheswick is a Pennsylvania EGU subject to CSAPR. Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal that addresses a requirement of part D of title I of the CAA (CAA sections 171-193) or is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a sanctions clock. Pennsylvania's March 25, 2014 SIP revision submittal for revising Cheswick's BART was not submitted to meet either of these requirements. Therefore, our limited disapproval of Pennsylvania's SIP submission concerning Cheswick's SO2 and NOX BART does not trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179. Other specific requirements and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.6 No adverse public comments were received on the NPR.

    6 In the NPR, EPA found this SIP revision to Cheswick's BARTs complies with section 110(l) of the CAA and will not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA, such as the visibility and regional haze provisions of sections 169A and 169B of the CAA.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the portion of the Pennsylvania March 25, 2014 revision to its regional haze SIP which removes specific SO2 and NOX BART emission limitations for Cheswick set in error and is finalizing a limited disapproval of the SIP revision due to its reliance upon CAIR, which has been replaced with CSAPR. As EPA issued a FIP for SO2 and NOX BART emission limitations for EGUs in Pennsylvania, which includes Cheswick, no further action by EPA is required to address the limited disapproval. This conclusion is based on our review of the March 25, 2014 SIP revision as well as Pennsylvania's December 20, 2010 regional haze SIP submission, including technical data and supporting analysis. This final action concludes that Cheswick's participation in CSAPR supersedes the previous SO2 and NOX BART determinations for Cheswick included in Pennsylvania's regional haze SIP.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

    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 May 26, 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 revising the SO2 and NOX BART emission limitations for Cheswick in Pennsylvania's regional haze SIP may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: March 10, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    Therefore, 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 NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding a new entry following the existing entries for “Regional Haze Plan” to read as follows:
    § 52.2020 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Name of non-regulatory
  • SIP revision
  • Applicable geographic area State
  • submittal
  • date
  • EPA Approval date Additional explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Regional Haze Plan Statewide 3/25/14 3/27/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Rulemaking pertains to Boiler No. 1 of the Cheswick Power Plant in Allegheny County.
  • Limited approval removes SO2 and NOX Best Available Retrofit Technology limits. Limited disapproval relates to the Federal Implementation Plan at § 52.2042(b) and (c).
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-06965 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0083; FRL-9924-73-Region 9] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer County Air Pollution Control District and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the surface coating of plastic parts and products, metalworking fluids (MWF) and direct-contact lubricants (DCL). We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on May 26, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 27, 2015. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0083, by one of the following methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-3024, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules D. Public Comment and Final Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this Submittal with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board.

    Table 1—Submitted Rules Local agency Rule number Rule title Adopted Submitted PCAPCD 249 Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products 8/8/13 5/13/14 VCAPCD 74.31 Metalworking Fluids and Direct-Contact Lubricants 11/12/13 5/13/14

    On July 18, 2014, EPA determined that the submittals for PCAPCD Rule 249 and VCAPCD Rule 74.31 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

    B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of PCAPCD Rule 249 or VCAPCD Rule 74.31 in the SIP.

    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 249 establishes VOC content limits and workplace standards for the surface coating of plastic parts and products. It also describes related recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements. Rule 74.31 establishes VOC content limits and usage for MWF and DCL. Rule 74.31 applies to any person who uses MWF and DCL commercially or industrially and to any manufacturer or supplier who supplies, sells, or offers for sale either MWF or DCL for use at industrial or commercial facilities. Such persons must use compliant fluids as specified by rule 74.31. EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules.

    II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    40 CFR 81.305 describes PCAPCD as regulating an ozone nonattainment area classified as Severe and VCAPCD classified as Serious for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (2008 Standard). SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).

    Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each VOC major source in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)).

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992 and 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992). 2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations” (“the Bluebook,” U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; revised January 11, 1990). 3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies” (“the Little Bluebook”, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001). 4. “Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings” (CTG), September 2008. (EPA 453-R-008-003). B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The VOC content limits and usage requirements in Rule 249 are equivalent or more stringent to the relevant sections of EPA's 2008 metal parts CTG, implement RACT and strengthen the SIP. Rule 74.31 strengthens the SIP because the VCAPCD did not have a SIP approved rule regulating MWF and DCL and there exists no relevant CTG, but we also believe Rule 74.31 implements RACT. The TSDs associated with each rule have more information on our evaluation.

    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agencies modify the rules but are not currently the basis for rule disapproval.

    D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by April 27, 2015, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on May 26, 2015. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

    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.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

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

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 26, 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(441)(i)(B)(3) and (c)(441)(i)(C)(2) to read as follows:
    § 52.220 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (441) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (B) * * *

    (3) Rule 249, “Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products,” adopted on August 8, 2013.

    (C) * * *

    (2) Metalworking Fluids and Direct-Contact Lubricants,” adopted on November 12, 2013.

    [FR Doc. 2015-06858 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0804; FRL-9925-13-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing its proposal to approve revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria (HGB) and Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) 1997 8-Hour ozone nonattainment areas. The HGB area consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller counties. The DFW area consists of Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant counties. Specifically, we are approving portions of multiple revisions to the Texas SIP submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as meeting Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements. The RACT requirements apply to sources of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) in these areas. This action is in accordance with the federal Clean Air Act (the Act, CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule will be effective on April 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0804. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Alan Shar (6PD-L), telephone (214) 665-2164, email [email protected]. To schedule an appointment contact Alan Shar.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Outline I. Background II. Public Comments III. Submittals IV. Negative Declarations V. Final Actions VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    On January 21, 2014 (80 FR 2846) we proposed to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that the TCEQ submitted to EPA in multiple RACT-related rule revisions dated December 6, 2013, January 17, 2012, June 13, 2007, as well as the RACT analysis portions of attainment demonstration plans of January 17, 2012, April 6, 2010, and June 13, 2007 for the DFW and HGB areas. Details of these submittals and their evaluation were explained in our proposal, and its corresponding Technical Supporting Document. A summary of these submittals is described in section III.

    On August 4, 2014 (79 FR 45105) we approved RACT for the Offset Lithographic Printing Operations in the DFW (Serious) and HGB (Severe) areas. See docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0332 at www.regulations.gov. Also, on September 9, 2014 (79 FR 53299) we approved revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 115 for control of VOC emissions for storage tanks in the DFW (Serious) and HGB (Severe) areas. See docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0096 at www.regulations.gov.

    II. Public Comments

    The public comment period for the January 21, 2015 (80 FR 2846) proposal expired on February 20, 2015, and we did not receive any comments on the proposed actions during this period. Therefore, we are approving the January 21, 2015 (80 FR 2846) proposal without any changes into the Texas SIP.

    III. Submittals

    The December 6, 2013 submittal concerned rule revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 115 Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds for solvent using processes and surface coating application systems. We are approving all of this submittal into the Texas SIP.

    The January 17, 2012 submittal concerned rule revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 115 Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds intended to implement RACT for both HGB and DFW areas. The submittal will limit VOC content of coatings and solvents used in Flexible Package Printing, Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings operations. We are approving all of this submittal into the Texas SIP.

    Another submittal also dated January 17, 2012 contained a corresponding analysis to demonstrate RACT is in place for multiple source categories in the HGB area. We are approving that RACT is in place for the source categories listed in the paragraph above, and we are approving the Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing sector for the HGB area of the RACT-related rule revisions which had not been previously approved.

    A third SIP submittal dated January 17, 2012 contained RACT analysis for the DFW area. As a result of this submittal, and consistent with section 182(c) of the Act, the VOC or NOx major source threshold in the DFW area is lowered to 50 Tons Per Year (TPY) from 100 TPY for RACT purposes under the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard. See EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0098 at www.regulations.gov. We are approving the RACT analysis portion of this submittal.

    The April 6, 2010 attainment demonstration submittal, among other things, concerned revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 115 Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds for control of ozone pollution in the HGB area. Appendix D of this attainment demonstration plan was titled “Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis,” and included source categories affected by the newly EPA-issued Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs), and NOx emissions sources. We are approving the RACT analysis portion of this submittal.

    The June 13, 2007 attainment demonstration submittal concerned revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 115 Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds. The June 13, 2007 submittal included an analysis intended to demonstrate RACT was being implemented in the HGB area as required by the CAA (Appendix B of the submittal). We are approving the RACT analysis portion of this submittal.

    The submittals concerning these nonattainment areas are available at www.regulations.gov, docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0804 under the “supporting and related materials.”

    We are approving the above-mentioned revisions, as well as confirming the RACT finding for revisions previously approved for Texas, into the Texas SIP. We are approving Texas' RACT analysis as meeting the RACT requirements for all affected VOC and NOx sources for the DFW and HGB areas for the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard.

    IV. Negative Declarations

    The January 21, 2015 (80 FR 2846) proposal included a list of source categories that do not operate within these nonattainment areas.

    For the DFW area, Texas declared that there were no fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, ship building and ship repair coating, leather tanning and finishing, surface coating for flat wood paneling, vegetable oil manufacturing, plywood veneer dryers, rubber tire manufacturing, and batch processes operations. We are approving the VOC RACT negative declaration for these operations in the DFW area.

    For the HGB area, on April 15, 2014 (79 FR 21144), we approved the VOC RACT negative declarations for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, leather tanning and finishing, surface coating for flat wood paneling, letterpress printing, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coating, rubber tire manufacturing, and vegetable oil manufacturing operations. See 40 CFR 52.2270(e).

    However, if a major source of these categories locates in these nonattainment areas in future, then TCEQ will need to take appropriate regulatory measures.

    V. Final Actions

    We are approving rule revisions to sections 30 TAC chapter 115.422, 115.427, 115.429, 115.430, 115.432, 115.433, 115.435, 115.436, and 115.439 implementing controls on the following source categories: Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing, Large Appliance Coatings, Metal Furniture Coatings, Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings, Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives, and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings.

    We are approving new sections 30 TAC chapter 115.431, 115.450, 115.451, 115.453-115.455, 115.458-115.461, 115.463-115.465, 115.468-115.471, 115.473-115.475, 115.478, and 115.479 implementing controls on the source categories listed above.

    We are approving repeal of section 30 TAC chapter 115.437.

    We are approving to find that for VOC CTG categories identified above, Texas has RACT-level controls in place for the HGB and DFW areas under the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard.

    We are approving to find that Texas has RACT-level controls in place for the Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing operations for the HGB area.

    We are approving the negative declarations as explained in section IV of this action.

    We are approving NOx RACT for the DFW area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard.

    In consideration of the above rule revisions, as well as the rule revisions previously approved and the rules in 30 TAC Chapters 115 and 117, we are approving that, Texas is implementing RACT for all affected VOC and NOx sources in the HGB and DFW areas under the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard.

    We are approving these revisions in accordance with sections 110, 182, and 183 of the federal CAA.

    The EPA had previously approved RACT for all affected NOx sources for the HGB area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard.

    The EPA had previously approved RACT for all affected VOC and NOx sources into Texas' SIP under the 1-Hour ozone standard.

    VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.4, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the Final Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulation.gov, Docket ID. No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0804.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. If a portion of the plan revision meets all the applicable requirements of this chapter and Federal regulations, the Administrator may approve the plan revision in part. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices that meet the criteria of the Act, and to disapprove state choices that do not meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this final action approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this final action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • 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); and

    • Does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 26, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed 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).)

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 16, 2015. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart SS—Texas 2. In § 52.2270: a. In paragraph (c), the table is amended under Chapter 115 (Reg 5) as follows: i. Revising the entries for Sections 115.422, 115.427, and 115.429 under “Subchapter E—Solvent Using—Process,” “Division 2: Surface Coating Processes”. ii. Adding new entry for Section 115.431 in numerical order under “Subchapter E—Solvent Using—Process,” “Division 3: Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing”. iii. Removing the entry for Section 115.437 under “Subchapter E—Solvent Using—Process,” “Division 3: Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing”. iv. Revising the entries for Sections 115.430, 115.432, 115.433, 115.435, 115.436, and 115.439 under “Subchapter E—Solvent Using—Process,” “Division 3: Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing”. v. Adding new entries for Sections 115.450, 115.451, 115.453, 115.454, 115.455, 115.458, 115.459 under “Subchapter E—Solvent Using—Process,” “Division 5: Control Requirements for Surface Coating Processes”. vi. Adding new entries for Sections 115.460, 115.461, 115.463, 115.464, 115.465, 115.468, and 115.469, under “Subchapter E—Solvent Using—Process,” “Division 6: Industrial Cleaning Solvents”. vii. Adding new entries for Sections 115.470, 115.471, 115.473, 115.474, 115.475, 115.478, and 115.479 under “Subchapter E—Solvent Using—Process,” “Division 7: Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives”. b. In paragraph (e), the table titled “EPA approved nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures in the Texas SIP” is amended by adding four new entries at the end.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 52.2270 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP State citation Title/Subject State approval/submittal date EPA Approval date Explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 115 (Reg 5)—Control of Air Pollution From Volatile Organic Compounds *         *         *         *         *         *         * Subchapter E—Solvent-Using Processes *         *         *         *         *         *         * Division 2: Surface Coating Processes *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 115.422 Control Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 115.427 Exemptions 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.429 Counties and Compliance Schedules 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Division 3: Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing Section 115.430 Applicability and Definitions 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.431 Exemptions 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.432 Control Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.433 Alternate Control Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.435 Testing Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.436 Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.439 Counties and Compliance Schedules 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Division 5: Control Requirements for Surface Coating Processes Section 115.450 Applicability and Definitions 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.451 Exemptions 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.453 Control Requirements 12/6/13 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.454 Alternate Control Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.455 Approved Test Methods and Testing Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.458 Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.459 Compliance Schedules 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Division 6: Industrial Cleaning Solvents Section 115.460 Applicability and Definitions 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.461 Exemptions 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.463 Control Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.464 Alternate Control Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.465 Approved Test Methods and Testing Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.468 Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.469 Compliance Schedules 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Division 7: Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives Section 115.470 Applicability and Definitions 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.471 Exemptions 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.473 Control Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.474 Alternate Control Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.475 Approved Test Methods and Testing Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.478 Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. Section 115.479 Compliance Schedules 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation]. *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (e) * * *

    EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP Name of SIP provision Applicable
  • geographic or non-attainment area
  • State approval/
  • submittal date
  • EPA Approval date Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * NOX RACT finding for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS Collin, Dallas, Denton, Tarrant, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall Counties, TX 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation] DFW as Moderate and Serious. VOC RACT finding of negative declaration for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, Ship Building and Ship Repair Coating, Leather Tanning and Finishing, Surface Coating for Flat Wood Paneling, Vegetable Oil Manufacturing, Letterpress Printing, Plywood Veneer Dryers, Rubber Tire Manufacturing, and Batch Processes Operations Collin, Dallas, Denton, Tarrant, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall Counties, TX 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation] DFW as Moderate and Serious. VOC RACT finding for all sectors under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including the 2006-2008 EPA-issued CTG series and non-CTG major sources Collin, Dallas, Denton, Tarrant, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall Counties, TX 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation] DFW as Moderate and Serious. VOC RACT finding for all sectors under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including the 2006-2008 EPA-issued CTG series and non-CTG major sources Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller Counties, TX 01/17/12 3/27/15 [Insert FR citation] HGB as Severe.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06847 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0209; FRL-9924-60] Deltamethrin; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of the insecticide deltamethrin in or on all food and feed commodities from use of deltamethrin as a wide-area mosquito adulticide. Bayer CropScience requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective March 27, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 26, 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-2014-0209, 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-2014-0209 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 May 26, 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-2014-0209, 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 January 28, 2015 (80 FR 4527) (FRL-9921-60), 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 [3F8210]) by Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.435 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide deltamethrin, (1R,3R)-R-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 3-(2,2-dibromoethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on food and feed commodities at 0.05 parts per million (ppm) from use as a wide-area mosquito adulticide. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to the comment 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 deltamethrin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with deltamethrin 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. Deltamethrin, a Type II pyrethroid, targets the nervous system by disrupting the voltage-gated sodium channels, resulting in neurotoxicity. Neurotoxicity was observed throughout the toxicity database, and effects were seen across species, sexes, exposure duration, and routes of administration. Clinical signs characteristic of Type II pyrethroids, such as increased salivation, altered mobility/gait, and tremors were the most common effects observed. Increased sensitivity to external stimuli, abnormal vocalization, and decreased fore- and hind-limb grip strength were also commonly observed in the database.

    Deltamethrin is rapidly absorbed following an oral dose, and effects are typically observed within two to five hours after dosing. For pyrethroids, as a class, the combination of rapid absorption, metabolism, and elimination precludes accumulation and increased potency following repeated dosing. This is also true of deltamethrin. No observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) for the acute and chronic studies are similar, and the acute endpoint is protective of the endpoints from repeat dosing studies.

    A dermal risk assessment was not conducted based on the lack of effects in a 21-day dermal study and low potential for dermal absorption for deltamethrin. These findings are consistent with the toxicology profile of many pyrethroids.

    Deltamethrin did not have any adverse effects on fetuses or offspring in the prenatal developmental studies in rats and rabbits. However, potential qualitative susceptibility was observed at high doses in the developmental neurotoxicity study (DNT) and the 2-generation reproduction study. Symptoms included vocalization, decreased pre- and post-weaning body weight in pups of both sexes, decreased body weight and body weight gain in maternal animals, hyperactivity, and excessive salivation. The increased qualitative susceptibility in the DNT and 2-generation reproduction study was observed at doses 10- to 20-fold higher (near lethal doses) than the current points of departure (PODs) selected for risk assessment. At doses near the POD, no effects on parental animals or offspring were observed in either the DNT or 2-generation reproductive studies. Therefore, the current PODs are protective of the observed sensitivity.

    There was no evidence of immunotoxicity after deltamethrin exposure in the toxicology database or in an immunotoxicity study in rats. Deltamethrin is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in the combined chronic/carcinogenicity study in rats or the carcinogenicity study in mice. In a battery of mutagenicity studies there was no evidence of a mutagenic effect.

    The database shows that deltamethrin has moderate to minimal acute toxicity via the oral route, moderate acute toxicity via the inhalation route, and minimal acute toxicity via the dermal route of exposure. Deltamethrin is minimally irritating to the eyes, non-irritating to the skin, and is not a skin sensitizer.

    The Agency is making best use of the extensive scientific knowledge about the mode of action/adverse outcome pathway (MOA/AOP) on pyrethroids in the risk assessments for this class of pesticides. A significant portion of the scientific literature on pyrethroids utilizes deltamethrin as the test chemical. In the on-going work by the Council for the Advancement of Pyrethroid Human Risk Assessment (CAPHRA), deltamethrin is one of two sentinel pyrethroids being used to develop the initial, extensive database of in vitro and in vivo toxicology studies and highly refined physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models. Pharmacokinetics (PK) can be defined as what the body does to the chemical. The underlying PK of pyrethroids is an important determination of their toxicity because the concentration of pyrethroid at the sodium channel relates to the extent of toxicity; greater pyrethroid concentration translates as increased neurotoxicity. Age-dependent PK differences have been identified for several pyrethroids (i.e., there are differences in the ability of adults and juveniles to metabolize pyrethroids). The enzymes that metabolize and detoxify pyrethroids are present in rats and humans at birth, and as a result, both juveniles and adults are able to tolerate low doses of pyrethroids when the internal dose, or the amount of pyrethroid at the sodium channel, is low. However, the activity of these enzymes increases with age, conveying in adults a greater capacity to detoxify pyrethroids compared to juveniles and the PK contribution to the FQPA Safety Factor will be 1X for adults and children >6 years old, and 3X for children <6 years old.

    Pharmacodynamics (PD) can be defined as the changes that chemicals cause to the body, in this case, how pyrethroids interact with the sodium channels. In contrast to the age-related PK differences identified for pyrethroids, pharmacodynamic contributions to pyrethroid toxicity are not age-dependent. The occurrence and ontogeny of voltage-gated sodium channels in humans are not well characterized compared to those in the rat. The available data indicate that the rat is a highly-sensitive model and extrapolations from the rat would be protective of human health. Based on the comparable function and distribution of sodium channels between the species, the rat is an appropriate surrogate for the evaluation of human PD. Based on the body of data, the Agency concludes that juvenile rats are not more sensitive than adults with respect to pyrethroid PD, and the PD contribution to the FQPA SF will be 1X.

    The Wolansky et al. acute oral study (2006), in which decreased motor activity was observed, provides the most robust data set for extrapolating risk from exposure to deltamethrin. The dose used for risk assessment was determined using a benchmark dose (BMD) analysis using one standard deviation from the control group as the benchmark response (BMR) as suggested for continuous endpoints in the Agency's BMD guidance (USEPA 2012). The Wolansky acute study, endpoint, and dose were used for all dietary (acute), non-occupational (incidental oral and inhalation), and occupational exposure (inhalation) scenarios because it was the most robust data set for extrapolating risk from deltamethrin, and there is a lack of increased hazard from repeated/chronic exposure to deltamethrin.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by deltamethrin 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 Deltamethrin. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Use of Deltamethrin as a Mosquito Adulticide over Agricultural Crops at [page 55] in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-20[14]-[0209].

    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 deltamethrin used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B of the final rule published in the Federal Register of [November 7, 2014] ([79] FR [66294]) (FRL-9918-24).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to deltamethrin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerance as well as all existing deltamethrin tolerances in 40 CFR 180.435. Acute and chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16. This software uses 2003-2008 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). Specific information on the dietary exposure assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Deltamethrin. Acute and Chronic Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk Assessment for the Proposed Use of Deltamethrin as a Wide Area Mosquito Adulticide over Agricultural Crops in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-20[14]-[0209].

    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. Such effects were identified for deltamethrin. As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-level residues for most commodities and Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data for a number of commodities. Maximum percent crop treated (%CT) estimates were used for some commodities. To account for the mosquito adulticide use, the maximum residue value from the mosquito adulticide trials was multiplied by the %CT estimate for the adulticide use (1%) for those commodities that would only have a residue as a result of the mosquito adulticide use. However, if the commodity could have residues from both the agricultural and mosquitocide uses, residue values from the adulticide trials were included in a distribution considering the 1% CT estimate (depending on whether the commodities were blended, nonblended, or partially blended). Default processing factors were used for some processed commodities and empirical factors were used for others.

    ii. Chronic exposure. As to residue levels in food, EPA [used tolerance-level residues for most commodities. The average PDP value was used for cereal grains and milk. The average mosquito adulticide residue value multiplied by the 1% CT estimate was used to account for the mosquito adulticide uses. Since deltamethrin is registered for use in food handling establishments (FHEs), one-half the FHE tolerance was used to account for the FHE uses. The FHE tolerance is based on the LOQ, and one-half the tolerance was used as a refinement in the dietary assessment. For the commodities for which one-half the FHE tolerance was used, the assumption was made that there was a 4.65% chance that a food item consumed by a person contained deltamethrin residues as a result of treatment at some point in an FHE. Default processing factors were used for some processed commodities and empirical factors were used for others.

    The chronic assessment was conducted solely for the purpose of obtaining estimates of background levels of dietary exposure for estimating aggregate risk.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that deltamethrin does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.

    Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:

    • Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.

    • Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.

    • Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.

    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

    The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows: For acute dietary: 2.5% for apples, cantaloupes, carrots, soybeans, tomatoes, and watermelons; and 5% for cucumbers and pears. For chronic dietary: 1% for apples, cantaloupes, carrots, cotton, potatoes (some food forms), pumpkins, radishes, squash, tomatoes, turnips, and watermelon; 2.5% for cucumbers, leeks, onions, pears, and sunflowers; 4.65% (commodities with residues resulting only from the FHE use) for: Almonds, pistachios, potatoes (some food forms), soybeans, sweet corn, and walnuts; 5% for canola and peppers; and 40% for globe artichokes.

    In the acute and chronic assessments, the mosquito adulticide %CT estimate of 1% was used to modify the mosquito adulticide use residue value. Residues from the mosquito adulticide use were included for all commodities with the exception of livestock commodities because the livestock commodities tolerances are very conservative, and any residues in livestock feed items resulting from the mosquito adulticide use will not increase the established tolerance levels.

    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.

    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which deltamethrin may be applied in a particular area.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for deltamethrin in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of deltamethrin. 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.

    The estimated drinking water concentration (EDWC) of deltamethrin for acute and chronic exposures is estimated to be 0.200 parts per billion (ppb) for both surface water and ground water. The FIRST Model was used to determine the surface water concentration, and the SCI-GROW Model was used to determine the groundwater concentration. The acute surface water EDWC and the groundwater EDWC were equivalent because, in both cases, the value was limited by the solubility of deltamethrin.

    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).

    Deltamethrin is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Residential outdoor and indoor sites, turf, paint additives, and pet products.

    There are no residential handler exposure scenarios associated with the proposed mosquito control use as applications are to be made by Federal, State, Tribal or local Government Officials or the U.S. Military. However, there is potential for residential post-application exposure resulting from mosquito control use. Post-application inhalation exposures and incidental oral (hand-to-mouth) contact with residues deposited on lawn/turf from ULV truck fogger applications were included in the quantitative risk assessment. To calculate post-application exposure from ULV truck fogger applications, EPA used the 2012 Residential SOPs for Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems, with minimal modification to the well-mixed box (WMB) model. The WMB model allows for the estimation of inhalation exposure in the breathing zones of adults and children residing in areas being treated by ground application of deltamethrin.

    EPA also assessed handler and post-application exposures for existing residential uses of deltamethrin (i.e., indoor, outdoor, pet, and paint additive). A quantitative dermal assessment for residential handlers was not conducted since no systemic toxicity associated with dermal exposure to deltamethrin was observed. MOEs were calculated for the inhalation route of exposure only. Adult post-application exposures from the existing uses were not quantitatively assessed since inhalation exposures are typically negligible in outdoor settings. Post-application inhalation exposure for adults and children is anticipated to be negligible for representative residential registered uses; therefore, a quantitative post-application inhalation exposure assessment was not performed. EPA assessed post-application incidental oral exposures to children for representative indoor/outdoor and pet incidental oral scenarios including hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, soil ingestion, and episodic granule ingestion scenarios.

    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.”

    The Agency has determined that the pyrethroids and pyrethrins share a common mechanism of toxicity: the ability to interact with voltage-gated sodium channels ultimately leading to neurotoxicity. The cumulative risk assessment (CRA) for the pyrethroids/pyrethrins (published on 11/9/2011 and available at http://www.regulations.gov; EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0746) did not identify cumulative risks of concern, allowing the Agency to consider new uses for pyrethroids. Deltamethrin was included in the pyrethroid/pyrethrin CRA.

    Dietary exposures make a minor contribution to the total pyrethroid exposure. The dietary exposure assessment performed in support of the pyrethroid CRA was much more highly refined than that performed for deltamethrin alone. Additionally, the PODs selected for deltamethrin are specific to deltamethrin, whereas the PODs selected for the cumulative assessment were based on common mechanism of action data that are appropriate for all 20 pyrethroids included in the CRA. Dietary exposure to deltamethrin residues resulting from the proposed wide-area mosquito adulticide use will contribute very little to the dietary exposure to deltamethrin alone and will have an insignificant impact on the cumulative risk assessment. No dietary, residential, or aggregate risk estimates of concern have been identified in the single chemical assessment.

    In the cumulative assessment, residential exposure was the greatest contributor to the total exposure. In order to determine if the registered deltamethrin indoor and turf uses will significantly contribute to, or change the overall findings in the pyrethroid CRA, the Agency performed a quantitative exposure and risk assessment. This assessment used the deltamethrin relative potency factor (RPF) as well as the same exposure algorithms and inputs that were used in the 2011 pyrethroid CRA. In all cases, the estimated deltamethrin MOEs using the RPF method were higher (i.e., less of a risk concern) than those used in the 2011 pyrethroid CRA. Thus, the Agency continues to support the previous assessment, and concludes that the registered deltamethrin uses will not significantly contribute to the overall findings in the 2011 pyrethroid CRA, and the registered deltamethrin indoor and turf uses will have no impact on the residential component of the cumulative risk estimates.

    For information regarding EPA's efforts to evaluate the risk of exposure to this class of chemicals, refer to: ^http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reevaluation/pyrethroids-pyrethrins.html.

    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 were no indications of fetal toxicity in any of the guideline studies. Evidence of increased juvenile qualitative sensitivity was observed in the DNT and 2-generation reproduction studies at doses that were considered to be relatively high (i.e., near lethal doses). However, at doses near the point of departure, no effects on parental animals or offspring were observed in either the DNT or 2-generation reproduction study and, therefore, there is no susceptibility at these doses.

    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 3X for infants and children <6 years old; and to 1X for children >6 years old, women of child bearing age and all adult populations. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The database of experimental toxicology studies available for deltamethrin is largely complete including developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, a reproduction study in rats, and acute neurotoxicity (ACN), subchronic neurotoxicity (SCN), and developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) studies. The database provides a robust characterization profile for children 6 years old and older, as well as for adults. In addition to the standard guideline studies, numerous studies from the scientific literature that describe the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profile of the pyrethroids in general have been considered in this assessment. Many of these studies were conducted with deltamethrin. A 28- or 90-day inhalation study is not available, but the Agency determined the study is not required for deltamethrin.

    ii. As with other pyrethroids, deltamethrin causes neurotoxicity from interaction with sodium channels leading to clinical signs of neurotoxicity. These effects are well characterized and adequately assessed by the body of data available to the Agency.

    iii. There were no indications of fetal toxicity in any of the guideline studies in the database, including developmental studies in the rat and rabbit, a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats, and a 2-generation reproduction study in rats. There was evidence of increased juvenile qualitative susceptibility at high doses observed in both the DNT and 2-generation reproduction studies. These observations are consistent with the findings of juvenile sensitivity in the literature for deltamethrin. However, the observations of increased sensitivity were at doses that were considered to be relatively high (i.e., near lethal doses), whereas at doses near the point of departure, no effects on parental animals or offspring were observed in either the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) or 2-generation reproduction study and, therefore, there is no susceptibility at these doses. The Agency has retained a 3X uncertainty factor to protect for exposures of children <6 years of age based on increased quantitative susceptibility seen in studies on pyrethroid pharmacokinetics (primarily conducted with deltamethrin) and the increased quantitative juvenile susceptibility observed in high dose guideline and literature studies with deltamethrin and other pyrethroids. The Agency has no residual uncertainties regarding age-related sensitivity for women of child bearing age as well as for all adult populations and children ≥6 years of age, based on the absence of pre-natal sensitivity observed in 76 guideline studies for 24 pyrethroids and the scientific literature. Additionally, no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility was seen in the pyrethroid scientific literature related to pharmacodynamics.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties with regard to dietary exposure. The dietary exposure assessments are based on high-end residue levels for most commodities, and that account for parent and metabolites of concern, processing factors, and percent crop treated assumptions. Furthermore, conservative, upper-bound assumptions were used to determine exposure through drinking water and residential sources, such that these exposures have not been underestimated.

    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. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to deltamethrin will occupy 81% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. A chronic dietary risk assessment was not conducted because there is no apparent increase in hazard from repeated/chronic exposures to deltamethrin. Therefore, the acute endpoint is protective of the endpoints from repeat dosing studies. A chronic dietary exposure assessment was performed in order to generate background exposure estimates to aggregate with residential exposure estimates for the short-term aggregate risk assessment.

    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). Deltamethrin 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 deltamethrin.

    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 2,500 for the general U.S. population and of 520 for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Because EPA's level of concern for deltamethrin is an MOE of 300 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Because no intermediate-term adverse effect was identified, deltamethrin is not expected to pose an intermediate-term risk.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, deltamethrin 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 deltamethrin residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology utilizing gas chromatography with electron capture detection (GC/ECD), is available for enforcing tolerances for residues of deltamethrin in plant commodities, as described in Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Volume II, Section 180.422. Another GC/ECD method (Method HRAV-22) is available for enforcing tolerances in livestock commodities. Adequate confirmatory method validation data have been submitted for these methods, along with adequate independent laboratory validation (ILV) trials.

    Multiresidue methods data for cis-deltamethrin and trans-deltamethrin were previously sent to FDA. Cis-deltamethrin is completely recovered through Methods 302 and 303, and partially recovered through Method 304. Trans-Deltamethrin is partially recovered through Method 303, but not recovered through Method 304.

    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.

    Harmonization of MRLs is not an issue for the proposed use of deltamethrin as a wide area mosquitocide since established tolerance levels are not changing.

    C. Response to Comments

    An anonymous citizen objected to the approval of the requested tolerance for deltamethrin. The commenter expressed concerns about the neurotoxicity of the chemical and made unsubstantiated claims that together with all other approved toxic chemicals, use of deltamethrin could lead to many deaths and injuries and that the Agency is harming the American people. Under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) EPA is authorized to establish pesticide tolerances where the safety standard imposed by that statute is met. When new or amended tolerances for residues of a pesticide in food or feed are requested, the Agency evaluates whether there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. The risk assessment conducted by the Agency considers the potential risks from dietary exposure and other non-occupational exposures. The Agency also considers the available information regarding cumulative toxicological effects of the pesticide residues and other substances that share a common mechanism of toxicity with the subject pesticide. Such an assessment has been conducted for deltamethrin. Deltamethrin is a Type II pyrethroid, and as with other pyrethroids, deltamethrin causes neurotoxicity. These effects are well characterized and adequately assessed by the body of data available to the Agency. The Agency is confident that it has chosen endpoints, points of departure, and uncertainty factors, that have a strong scientific foundation and that are protective for all human populations. As a result, EPA concludes that the tolerances for deltamethrin are safe.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of deltamethrin, (1R,3R)-3-(2,2-dibromovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid (S)-alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl ester and its major metabolites, trans-deltamethrin (S)-alpha-cyano-m-phenoxybenzyl-(1R,3R)-3-(2,2-dibromovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and alpha-R-deltamethrin[(R)-alpha-cyano-m-phenoxybenzyl-(1R,3R)-3-(2,2-dibromovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate in or on all food/feed items (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) from use as a wide-area mosquito adulticide at 0.05 ppm.

    Currently, a tolerance of 0.05 ppm is established for residues of deltamethrin in or on all food/feed items (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) in food/feed handling establishments. The tolerance level does not need to be increased for the proposed use as a mosquito adulticide; however, EPA is revising 40 CFR 180.435 to clarify the tolerance. In addition, EPA is removing subparagraphs (a)(2)(i), (ii), (A) and (B) as they contain language that is more appropriately enforced under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as use directions on the label.

    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: March 18, 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 § 180.435, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as:
    § 180.435 Deltamethrin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. * * *

    (2) A tolerance of 0.05 ppm is established for residues of the insecticide deltamethrin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on all food/feed items (other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops) when deltamethrin is used in food/feed handling establishments or as a wide-area mosquito adulticide. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified is to be determined by measuring only deltamethrin, (1R,3R)-3-(2,2-dibromovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid (S)-alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl ester, and its major metabolites, trans-deltamethrin, (S)-alpha-cyano-m-phenoxybenzyl(1R,3S)-3-(2,2-dibromovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, and alpha-R-deltamethrin, (R)-alpha-cyano-m-phenoxybenzyl-(1R,3R)-3-(2,2-dibromovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on the commodity.

    [FR Doc. 2015-06861 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0632; FRL-9924-86] Thiram; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of thiram in or on banana. Taminco US, Inc. requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective March 27, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 26, 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-2014-0632, 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-2014-0632 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 May 26, 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-2014-0632, 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 4E8268) by Taminco US, Inc., Two Windsor Plaza, Suite 411, Allentown, PA 18195. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.132 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide thiram, in or on banana at 0.8 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Taminco US, Inc., the petitioner, 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 thiram including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with thiram 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.

    Thiram is a dimethyl dithiocarbamate fungicide. Thiram has been shown to cause neurotoxicity following acute and subchronic exposures. In the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies submitted, neurotoxicity is characterized as lethargy, reduced and/or tail pinch response, changes in the functional-observation battery (FOB) parameters, increased hyperactivity, changes in motor activity, and increased occurrences of rearing events. No treatment-related changes were observed in brain weights or in the histopathology of the nervous system. In a non-guideline study published in the open literature, chronic feeding of thiram to rats caused neurotoxicity, with onset of ataxia in some animals 5-19 months after beginning of treatment. However, no evidence of neurotoxicity was seen following chronic exposures in mice or rats in guideline studies submitted to the Agency. The chronic toxicity profile for thiram indicates that the liver, blood, and urinary system are the target organs for this chemical in mice, rats, and dogs. There is no evidence for increased susceptibility following in utero exposures to rats or rabbits and following prenatal and postnatal exposures to rats for 2 generations. There is evidence of quantitative susceptibility in the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study. However, there is low concern for the increased susceptibility seen in the DNT study since the dose response is well defined with a clear no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and this endpoint is used for assessing the acute dietary risk for the most sensitive population. Thiram is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” based on lack of evidence for carcinogenicity in mice or rats. There are no mutagenic/genotoxic concerns with thiram. The available toxicological database for thiram suggests that this chemical has a low to moderate acute-toxicity profile.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by thiram as well as the NOAEL and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Thiram. Update to the Aggregate Risk Assessment to Support the Requested PHI Reduction and Increased Tolerance Request on Strawberry,” p. 9 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0925.

    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 thiram used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of February 12, 2014 (79 FR 8295) (FRL-9904-22).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to thiram, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing thiram tolerances in 40 CFR 180.132. EPA assessed dietary exposures from thiram 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.

    A partially refined probabilistic acute dietary-exposure assessment was performed using 100 percent crop treated (PCT), tolerance-level residues the highest residue found during field-trials, distributions of field trial residues, and empirical processing factors.

    ii. Chronic exposure. Tolerances-level residues for banana and average field trial residues for apples, peaches, and strawberries along with 100 PCT were used for the chronic dietary exposure analysis for all crops. Empirical processing factors were also used.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that thiram does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use PCT information in the dietary assessment for thiram. The acute dietary assessment used 100 PCT, tolerance-level residues, the highest residue found during field-trials, distributions of field trial residues, and empirical processing factors; the chronic dietary assessment used average field trial residues along with tolerance-level residues. In addition, 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for thiram in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of thiram. 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 thiram for acute exposures are 0.0478 parts per million (ppm) and 0.0025 ppm for chronic exposures (for non-cancer assessments) for surface water. Ground water sources were not included (for acute or chronic exposures), as the EDWCs for ground water are minimal in comparison to those for surface water. Surface water EDWCs were incorporated in DEEM-FCID into the food categories “water, direct, all sources” and “water, indirect, all sources” for the dietary assessments.

    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). Thiram is not available for sale or use by homeowner applicators; therefore, there are no residential handler exposure scenarios. However, there is potential for residential post-application dermal exposure from treated golf course greens and tees. Residential exposures resulting from dermal contact with thiram-treated turf were assessed for children 6 to <11 years old, children 11 to <16 years old, and adults as described in document “Thiram. Update to the Aggregate Risk Assessment to Support the Requested PHI Reduction and Increased Tolerance Request on Strawberry,” p. 15 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0925.

    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.”

    Unlike the N-methyl carbamate pesticides, EPA has not found thiram (a dithiocarbamate) to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and thiram does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that thiram 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.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of increased susceptibility following in utero exposure to rats or rabbits or following prenatal and postnatal exposures to rats. There is evidence of quantitative susceptibility in the DNT study. However, there is low concern for the enhanced susceptibility seen in the DNT study because:

    i. Clear NOAELs/LOAELs were established for the offspring effects.

    ii. The dose-response is well defined.

    iii. The behavioral effect of concern were observed only in females on one evaluation time period.

    iv. The dose/endpoint is used for acute dietary risk for the most sensitive population subgroup (females 13-49 years old). Consequently, there are no residual uncertainties for prenatal and postnatal toxicity.

    Consequently, there are no residual uncertainties for prenatal and postnatal toxicity.

    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 thiram is complete with acceptable neurotoxicity, developmental, and reproductive toxicity studies.

    ii. As explained in this unit, there are no residual uncertainties for prenatal and postnatal toxicity.

    iii. 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 thiram in drinking water. In addition, the acute dietary exposure analysis used field trial data along with the 100 PCT. The chronic dietary exposure analysis used tolerance level residues or average field residues along with the 100 PCT. In addition, washing studies were incorporated into the dietary analyses since thiram is not a systemic pesticide and will wash off during normal washing procedures. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by thiram. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by thiram.

    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. The acute dietary risk estimates are not of concern to EPA (<100% aPAD) at the 95th exposure percentile for the general U.S. population and all other population subgroups. The acute dietary exposure was 62% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old, the population subgroup with the highest percent aPAD. Therefore, the acute aggregate risk associated with the proposed uses of thiram is not of concern to EPA for the general U.S. population or any population subgroups.

    2. Chronic risk. The chronic aggregate risk assessment takes into account exposure estimates from dietary consumption of thiram (food and drinking water). The chronic dietary risk estimates are not of concern to EPA (<100% cPAD) for the general U.S. population and all other population subgroups. The chronic dietary exposure was 70% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population subgroup with the highest estimated chronic dietary exposure. Therefore, the chronic aggregate risk associated with the proposed uses of thiram is not of concern to EPA for the general U.S. population or any population subgroups.

    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. In aggregating short- and intermediate-term risk, the Agency routinely combines background chronic dietary exposure (food + water) with short/intermediate-term residential exposure (dermal only). The combined exposure may then be used to calculate an MOE for aggregate risk. Using the golfer scenario for adult males, adult females, and children >6 years old, combined with the applicable subpopulation with the greatest dietary exposure, the total short/intermediate-term food and residential aggregate MOEs are 570, 540, and 280, respectively. As these MOEs are above the target MOE of 100, the short- and intermediate-term aggregate risks are not of concern. For children <6 years old, there is no residential exposure, therefore, a short/intermediate term aggregate risk assessment is not required for this population.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, thiram is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (colorimetric analytical method) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method 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 not established a MRL for thiram in or on banana.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, EPA is removing the expiration/revocation date for the current tolerance for residues of thiram, in or on banana at 0.80 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes 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 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: March 19, 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 § 180.132, the table in paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
    § 180.132 Thiram; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million Apple 7.0 Banana 1 0.80 Peach 7.0 Strawberry 20 1 No U.S. registrations as of September 23, 2009.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06981 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 130403320-4891-02] RIN 0648-XD828 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Resources of the South Atlantic; 2015-2016 Recreational Fishing Season for Black Sea Bass AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; recreational season length.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces that the length of the recreational season for black sea bass in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic will extend throughout the fishing year. Announcing the length of recreational season for black sea bass is one of the accountability measures (AMs) for the recreational sector. This announcement allows recreational fishermen to maximize their opportunity to harvest the recreational annual catch limit (ACL) for black sea bass during the fishing season while managing harvest to protect the black sea bass resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m., local time, April 1, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, April 1, 2016, unless changed by subsequent notification in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nikhil Mehta, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The snapper-grouper fishery includes black sea bass in the South Atlantic and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council prepared the FMP and the FMP is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    The final rule implementing Regulatory Amendment 14 to the FMP changed the recreational fishing season for black sea bass from June 1-May 31 to April 1-March 31 (79 FR 66316, November 7, 2014). The final rule also revised the recreational AMs for black sea bass. Prior to the start of each recreational fishing year on April 1, NMFS will project the length of the recreational fishing season based on when NMFS projects the recreational ACL to be met and will announce the recreational season end date in the Federal Register (50 CFR 622.193(e)(2)). The purpose of this revised AM is to implement a more predictable recreational season length while still constraining harvest at or below the recreational ACL to protect the stock from experiencing adverse biological consequences.

    An increased recreational ACL of 1,033,980 lb (469,005 kg), round weight, was established through the final rule for Regulatory Amendment 19 to the FMP on September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58249). Harvest levels of black sea bass were not close to reaching the recreational ACL of 1,033,980 lb (469,005 kg) round weight during the 2012/2013 through 2014/2015 fishing years, and therefore, NMFS estimates that the recreational ACL will not be met in the 2015-2016 fishing season. Accordingly, the season end date for recreational fishing for black sea bass in the South Atlantic EEZ is March 31, 2016.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic black sea bass and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(e)(2) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement the recreational season length constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary. Such procedures are unnecessary, because the rule establishing the AM has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the recreational season length.

    For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07093 Filed 3-24-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 59 Friday, March 27, 2015 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 [Docket No. PRM-50-110; NRC-2015-0028] Applicability of Risk-Informed Categorization Regulation to Combined Licenses AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking from Michael D. Tschiltz, on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI or the petitioner), dated January 15, 2015, requesting that the NRC clarify the applicability of an NRC regulation to combined licenses (COLs). The NRC regulation allows structures, systems, and components (SSCs) of nuclear power reactors to be re-categorized based upon risk-informed considerations. Such re-categorization would result in changes in which NRC requirements would apply to those SSCs. The petition was docketed by the NRC on February 6, 2015, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-50-110. The NRC is not requesting public comment on PRM-50-110 at this time.

    DATES:

    The PRM is available on March 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0028 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this petition. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this petition by any of the following methods:

    Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0028. 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 document.

    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 in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

    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:

    Yanely Malave-Velez, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC, 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1519; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. The Petitioner

    The petition states that “NEI is the organization responsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues” (ADAMS Accession No. ML15037A481). The petition further states that “NEI's members include all entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, nuclear material licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry. NEI asserts that it is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of licensed facilities on matters involving generic NRC regulatory policy issues and generic operational and technical regulatory issues.”

    II. The Petition

    Michael D. Tschiltz, Director, Risk Assessment, NEI, submitted the petition for rulemaking dated January 15, 2015, requesting that the NRC amend its regulations in § 50.69 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems, and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors,” to clarify the scope of applicability to include holders of COLs. The NRC has determined that the petition meets the threshold sufficiency requirements for a petition for rulemaking under § 2.802, “Petition for rulemaking,” and the petition has been docketed as PRM-50-110.

    III. Discussion of the Petition

    The entities that may use § 50.69, as set forth in paragraph (b)(1), are holders of a license to operate a light-water reactor (LWR) under 10 CFR part 50; holders of a renewed LWR license under 10 CFR part 54; applicants for a construction permit or operating license under 10 CFR part 50; and applicants for a design approval, a combined license, or manufacturing license under 10 CFR part 52. The regulation does not apply to holders of COLs.

    The petitioner is requesting that § 50.69 be amended to clarify the scope of its applicability to include holders of COLs.

    IV. Background Information

    Section 50.69 provides an alternative set of requirements for the treatment of SSCs. Under this framework, licensees (or applicants), using a risk-informed process to categorize SSCs according to their safety significance, can remove SSCs of low safety significance from the scope of certain identified special treatment requirements. For SSCs of safety significance, existing requirements are retained, and § 50.69 would add requirements that ensure SSC performance remains consistent with that relied upon in the categorization process for beyond design basis conditions. These requirements can be voluntarily adopted by LWR licensees and applicants. Section 50.69 was most recently amended by the NRC in a rulemaking titled, “Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems and Components for Nuclear power Reactors,” published in the Federal Register as a proposed rule on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26511), and later as a final rule on November 22, 2004 (69 FR 68008). The final rule became effective on December 22, 2004.

    The applicability and scope of the NRC's regulations in § 50.69 currently applies to a holder of a license to operate a LWR under 10 CFR part 50; a holder of a renewed LWR license under 10 CFR part 54; an applicant for a construction permit or operating license under 10 CFR part 50; or an applicant for a design approval, a COL, or manufacturing license under 10 CFR part 52. A holder of a COL issued under 10 CFR part 52 is not included in the group of entities that may take advantage of the provisions of § 50.69.

    The specific reasons for excluding COL holders from the group of entities that may take advantage of the provisions of § 50.69 were not discussed in the Federal Register notice for either the proposed or final “Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors” rule. However, as discussed at a public meeting on October 17, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12341A153), the NRC staff provided the following reasons:

    1. After issuance of the COL, the staff was concerned primarily that implementation of the provisions of § 50.69 in the midst of construction and Inspections, Tests, Analysis, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) closure would lead to proposed changes in the NRC's approved requirements on some SSCs prior to the Commission making a finding regarding the COL ITAAC acceptance criteria in accordance with § 52.103(g). Such a situation could create an unexpected budget shortfall related to a higher resource burden for the NRC due to an increased number of license amendments submitted for review concurrent with supporting construction and ITAAC completion and complicate the NRC's ability to reach a finding under § 52.103(g).

    2. Since the proposed rule allowed for the provisions of § 50.69 to be adopted as part of the COL application, COL applicants could take advantage of these provisions as part of the COL review. This approach would be consistent with the NRC's Principles of Good Regulation regarding efficiency, since the staff believed that implementation of the provisions of § 50.69 following the Commission's making a finding per § 52.103(g) would require substantial additional resources to conduct the review of license amendments necessary to implement the provisions of § 50.69.

    The NRC did not receive any comments from the nuclear industry nor the general public on the absence of COL holders from the applicability provisions of the proposed rule. The final rule, as issued, retained this feature of the proposed rule.

    The NRC is examining the issues raised in PRM-50-110 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is not requesting public comment at this time.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of March, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Kenneth R. Hart, Acting, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07092 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [Docket Number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058] Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Dryers AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Request for information (RFI).

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is initiating an effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation standards for residential clothes dryers. According to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act's 6-year review requirement, DOE must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to propose amended standards for residential clothes dryers or a notice of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended by August 24, 2017. This notice seeks to solicit information from the public to help DOE determine whether amended standards for residential clothes dryers would result in a significant amount of additional energy savings and whether those standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified.

    DATES:

    Written comments and information are requested on or before May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments electronically. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected] Include docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058 in the subject line of the message. All comments should clearly identify the name, address, and, if appropriate, organization of the commenter.

    Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, Request for Information for Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Dryers, Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

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

    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058. This Web page contains a link to the docket for this notice on the www.regulations.gov Web site. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email: [email protected]. Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected]

    For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Authority and Background B. Rulemaking Process II. Request for Information and Comments A. Products Covered by This Rulemaking B. Test Procedure C. Market Assessment D. Engineering Analysis E. Markups Analysis F. Energy Use Analysis G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis H. Shipments Analysis I. National Impact Analysis J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis III. Submission of Comments I. Introduction A. Authority and Background

    Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.2 These products include residential clothes dryers, the subject of this Request for Information (RFI).

    1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.

    2 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).

    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) including new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))

    On April 21, 2011, DOE published a direct final rule (2011 Direct Final Rule) amending the energy conservation standards for residential clothes dryers. 76 FR 22454. The amended energy conservation standards were based on a new metric, the combined energy factor (CEF), that incorporates energy use in active mode, standby mode, and off mode. DOE established an initial compliance date of April 24, 2014 for the amended standards. Subsequently, DOE amended the compliance date for the new standards to January 1, 2015. 76 FR 52852 (Aug. 24, 2011).

    Thus, DOE must publish either a NOPR proposing amended standards for residential clothes dryers or a notice of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended by August 24, 2017. This RFI seeks input from the public to assist DOE with its determination on whether new or amended standards pertaining to residential clothes dryers are warranted. In making this determination, DOE must evaluate whether amended standards would: (1) Yield a significant savings in energy use; and (2) be both technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

    B. Rulemaking Process

    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including residential clothes dryers. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Table I.1—EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis Technological Feasibility • Market and Technology Assessment. • Screening Analysis. • Engineering Analysis. Economic Justification: 1. Economic impact on manufacturers and consumers • Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
  • • Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
  • • Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis. • Shipments Analysis. 2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared to increased cost for the product • Markups for Product Price Determination.
  • • Energy and Water Use Determination.
  • • Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 3. Total projected energy savings • Shipments Analysis. • National Impact Analysis. 4. Impact on utility or performance • Screening Analysis. • Engineering Analysis. 5. Impact of any lessening of competition • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 6. Need for national energy and water conservation • Shipments Analysis.
  • • National Impact Analysis.
  • 7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant • Emissions Analysis. • Utility Impact Analysis. • Employment Impact Analysis. • Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits. • Regulatory Impact Analysis.

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

    II. Request for Information and Comments

    In the next section, DOE has identified a variety of questions that DOE would like to receive input on to aid in the development of the technical and economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for residential clothes dryers may be warranted. In addition, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this rulemaking that may not be identified specifically in this notice. As part of the process for soliciting information, DOE is providing a document titled “APPENDIX—EXAMPLES OF RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES DRYER DATA” (available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058) to provide examples of the type of data needed for the rulemaking analyses.

    A. Products Covered by This Rulemaking

    DOE defines an electric clothes dryer to mean “a cabinet-like appliance designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum with forced air circulation. The heat source is electricity and the drum and blower(s) are driven by an electric motor(s).” (10 CFR 430.2) Similarly, DOE defines a gas clothes dryer to mean “a cabinet-like appliance designed to dry fabrics in a tumble-type drum with forced air circulation. The heat source is gas and the drum and blower(s) are driven by an electric motor(s).” (10 CFR 430.2) As part of this rulemaking, DOE intends to address energy conservation standards for both electric and gas clothes dryers.

    B. Test Procedure

    DOE's test procedures for clothes dryers are codified in appendix D1 and appendix D2 to subpart B of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). On January 6, 2011, DOE issued an amended test procedure for residential clothes dryers, in which it (1) adopted the provisions for the measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use along with a new energy efficiency metric, Combined Energy Factor (CEF), that incorporates energy use in active mode, standby mode, and off mode; and (2) adopted several amendments to the clothes dryer test procedure concerning active mode. 76 FR 972. DOE created a new appendix D1 in 10 CFR part 430 subpart B that contained the amended test procedure for clothes dryers.

    DOE issued a final rule on August 14, 2013 (August 2013 TP Final Rule), to amend the clothes dryer test procedure, in which it: (1) Updated appendix D1 to reference the latest edition of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301, “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power,” Edition 2.0 2011-01; (2) amended appendix D1 to clarify the cycle settings used for the test cycle, the requirements for the gas supply for gas clothes dryers, the installation conditions for console lights, the method for measuring the drum capacity, the maximum allowable weighing scale range, and the allowable use of a relative humidity meter; and (3) created a new appendix D2 that includes, in addition to the amendments discussed above, testing methods for measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination. 78 FR 49608. Manufacturers must use either the test procedures in appendix D1 or D2 to demonstrate compliance with energy conservation standards for clothes dryers as of January 1, 2015. Manufacturers must use a single appendix for all representations, including certifications of compliance, and may not use appendix D1 for certain representations and appendix D2 for other representations.

    DOE may consider energy conservation standards using the new appendix D2 test method to more accurately account for the effects of automatic cycle termination.

    Interested parties have commented publicly, as part of the previous test procedure rulemaking process and more recently through other public channels, that the DOE clothes dryer test procedures may not produce results that are representative of consumer use with regards to test load size and composition, cycle settings for the test cycle, and other provisions in the test procedure. DOE also notes that Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) recently published reports evaluating clothes dryer performance using the new appendix D2 test method and investigating new automatic cycle termination concepts for improving clothes dryer efficiency.3 In consideration of these concerns regarding the test procedure and the recent clothes dryer automatic cycle termination research, DOE initiated an effort to determine whether amendments to the test procedure are warranted. DOE held a public meeting on November 13, 2014, to solicit comments from interested parties on potential changes to the clothes dryer test procedure.4

    3 K. Gluesenkamp, Residential Clothes Dryer Performance Under Timed and Automatic Cycle Termination Test Procedures, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report No. ORNL/TM-2014/431 (2014) (“ORNL/TM-2014/431 Report”) (Available at: http://web.ornl.gov/sci/buildings/docs/2014-10-09-ORNL-DryerFinalReport-TM-2014-431.pdf); W. TeGrotenhuis, Clothes Dryer Automatic Termination Sensor Evaluation. Volume 1: Characterization of Energy Use in Residential Clothes Dryers, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Report No. PNNL-23621 (2014) (“PNNL-23621 Report”) (Available at: http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-23621.pdf); W. TeGrotenhuis, Clothes Dryer Automatic Termination Sensor Evaluation. Volume 2: Improved Sensor and Control Designs, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Report No. PNNL-23616 (2014) (Available at: http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-23616.pdf).

    4 The docket for this test procedure rulemaking is available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-TP-0034.

    C. Market Assessment

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

    Product Classes

    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that would justify a different standard. In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider factors such as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

    During the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking for residential clothes dryers, DOE established four product classes for vented clothes dryers and two product classes for ventless clothes dryers. DOE established separate product classes for ventless clothes dryers because of the unique utility they offer consumers, i.e., the ability to have a clothes dryer in a living area where vents are impossible to install, such as an apartment in a high-rise building, where venting dryers would be precluded due to venting restrictions. As part of the previous rulemaking, DOE established product classes for ventless electric compact (240V) clothes dryers and ventless electric combination washer/dryers.5 The product classes established in the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking are presented in Table II.1.

    5 A ventless combination washer/dryer is a device that washes and then dries clothes in the same basket/cavity in a combined cycle.

    Table II.1—Existing Clothes Dryer Product Classes Vented dryers 1. Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (ft3) or greater capacity). 2. Electric, Compact (120 volts (V)) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity). 3. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity). 4. Gas. Ventless dryers 5. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity). 6. Electric, Combination Washer/Dryer.

    Based on DOE's review of products available on market, DOE notes that at least one manufacturer offers a ventless clothes dryers with a drum capacity greater than 4.4 cubic feet. As a result, DOE tentatively proposes to establish an additional product class for ventless electric standard clothes dryers listed in Table II.2.

    Table II.2—Proposed Clothes Dryer Product Classes Vented dryers 7. Electric, Standard (4.4 cubic feet (ft3) or greater capacity). 8. Electric, Compact (120 volts (V)) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity). 9. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity). 10. Gas. Ventless dryers 11. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity). 12. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity). 13. Electric, Combination Washer/Dryer.

    Issue C.1 DOE requests feedback on the proposed product classes and seeks information regarding other product classes it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. In particular, DOE requests comment on the determination to consider a separate product class for ventless electric clothes dryers with drum capacities of 4.4 cubic feet or greater. If commenters believe that additional product classes are warranted, DOE requests comment as to how those classes should be configured, as well as energy use data and utility or performance-related information justifying the need for a separate class.

    Technology Assessment and Screening Analysis

    The purpose of the technology assessment is to develop a preliminary list of technologies that could potentially be used to improve the efficiency of residential clothes dryers. The purpose of the screening analysis is to screen out technologies that are not appropriate for consideration in the engineering analysis due to the following four factors: (1) Technological feasibility, (2) practicability to manufacture, install, and service, (3) impacts on product utility to consumers, and (4) health and safety. (10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section (4)(a)(4)) The technologies that pass the screening are considered in the engineering analysis.

    DOE uses information about existing and past technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed energy conservation standards. In consultation with interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to consider in its analysis. Initially, this list will include the technology options considered during the most recent residential clothes dryer standards rulemaking, including those that were screened out in the previous rulemaking.

    DOE plans to initially consider all of the technologies for residential clothes dryers identified in the previous standards rulemaking. These technology options are listed in Table II.3.

    Table II.3—Technology Options for Residential Clothes Dryers Dryer Control or Drum Upgrades 1. Improved termination. 2. Increased insulation. 3. Modified operating conditions. 4. Improved air circulation. 5. Improved drum design. Methods of Exhaust Heat Recovery (Vented Models Only) 6. Recycle exhaust heat. 7. Inlet air preheat. 8. Inlet air preheat, condensing mode. Heat Generation Options 9. Heat pump, electric only. 10. Microwave, electric only. 11. Modulating heat. 12. Indirect heating. Component Improvements 13. Improved motor efficiency. 14. Improved fan efficiency. Standby Power Improvements 15. Switching Power Supply. 16. Transformerless Power Supply with Auto-Powerdown.

    Based on a preliminary review of the clothes dryer market and information published in recent trade publications, technical reports, and manufacturer literature, DOE has observed that the results of the technology screening analysis performed during the previous rulemaking remain largely relevant for this rulemaking.

    Issue C.2 DOE seeks information on how the above technologies, and any other technologies that may improve clothes dryer efficiency: (1) Apply to the current market; and (2) improve efficiency of clothes dryers as measured according to the DOE test procedure under appendix D2.

    D. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship of products at different levels of increased energy efficiency. This relationship serves as the basis for the cost-benefit calculations for consumers, manufacturers, and the nation. In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the increase in manufacturer cost associated with increasing the efficiency of products above the baseline to the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) efficiency level for each product class. The baseline model is used as a reference point for each product class in the engineering analysis and the life-cycle cost and payback-period analyses.

    Baseline Models

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

    In developing the baseline efficiency levels, DOE initially considered the current standards for residential clothes dryers manufactured on or after January 1, 2015 presented in Table II.4.

    Table II.4—January 1, 2015 Clothes Dryer Energy Conservation Standard Levels Product class CEF
  • (lb/kWh)
  • Vented dryers 1. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) 3.73 2. Electric, Compact (120 v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) 3.61 3. Electric, Compact (240 v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) 3.27 4. Gas 3.30 Ventless dryers 5. Electric, Compact (240 v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) 2.55 6. Electric, Combination Washer/Dryer 2.08

    Since the last standards rulemaking, DOE amended the clothes dryer test procedures as part of the August 2013 TP Final Rule to create a new appendix D2 that includes testing methods for more accurately measuring the effects of automatic cycle termination. Because DOE is proposing to consider energy conservation standards based on the appendix D2 test method, DOE would have to establish baseline efficiency levels considering this new test procedure.

    As part of the August 2013 TP Final Rule, DOE presented test data for each product class comparing the efficiencies measured under the appendix D1 and D2 test procedures. 78 FR 49614-15. In addition, ORNL and PNNL conducted testing on separate models according to the appendix D1 and the new appendix D2 test procedures.6 Table II.5 presents the average measured CEF values using appendix D1 and D2 for each product class using the test data from DOE, ORNL, and PNNL.

    6 ORNL/TM-2014/431 Report at 12; PNNL-23621 Report at 2.1-2.3.

    Table II.5—Clothes Dryer Test Data Using Appendix D1 and D2 Product class Number of test units Appendix D1 Average CEF
  • (lb/kWh)
  • Appendix D2 Average CEF
  • (lb/kWh)
  • % Change
    Vented Electric Standard 12 3.83 3.19 −16.7 Vented Electric Compact (240V) 4 3.65 3.06 −16.2 Vented Electric Compact (120V) 1 3.75 2.18 −41.9 Vented Gas 8 3.43 2.87 −16.2 Ventless Electric Compact (240V) 1 2.98 2.73 −8.4 Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryer 2 2.55 2.45 −3.9

    Using these data, DOE developed tentative baseline efficiency levels by applying the percentage difference in efficiency between appendix D1 and D2, as presented in Table II.5, to the energy conservation standards for clothes dryers required on January 1, 2015, presented in Table II.4. The proposed baseline efficiency levels are presented in Table II.6. DOE did not have sufficient data to characterize the baseline efficiency level for the newly proposed product class, ventless electric standard clothes dryers.

    Table II.6—Proposed Baseline Efficiency Levels Product class Current
  • Standard CEF
  • (Appendix D1)
  • (lb/kWh)
  • Proposed
  • Baseline CEF
  • (Appendix D2)
  • (lb/kWh)
  • Vented dryers: 1. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) 3.73 3.11. 2. Electric, Compact (120 v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) 3.61 3.03. 3. Electric, Compact (240 v) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) 3.27 1.90. 4. Gas 3.30 2.77. Ventless dryers: 5. Electric, Standard (4.4 ft3 or greater capacity) Not Applicable Not Available. 6. Electric, Compact (240 V) (less than 4.4 ft3 capacity) 2.55 2.33. 7. Electric, Combination Washer/Dryer 2.08 2.00.

    Issue D.1 DOE requests comment on approaches that it should consider when determining the baseline efficiency levels for each product class, including information regarding the merits and/or limitations of such approaches. DOE also requests additional test data to characterize the baseline efficiency levels for each product class. In particular, DOE requests appendix D2 test data broken down by standby/off mode and active mode energy use for each product class, including the newly proposed product class for ventless electric standard dryers. DOE requests additional test data for residential clothes dryers showing the difference in measured efficiency using the appendix D1 test procedure and the appendix D2 test procedure.

    Higher Efficiency Levels

    DOE will analyze each product class to determine the relevant trial standard levels (TSLs) and to develop incremental manufacturing cost data at each higher efficiency level. DOE generally selects incremental efficiency levels based on a review of industry standards and the efficiency of products available on the market.

    For the vented clothes dryer product classes, DOE tentatively plans to consider an efficiency level associated with the current standard level nominal values without the adjustment used to develop the baseline efficiency levels discussed above. Because there is a large gap between these two efficiency levels, DOE is tentatively planning to consider evenly spaced gap fill efficiency levels. DOE also plans to consider efficiency levels corresponding to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Version 1.0 ENERGY STAR performance specification requirements 7 and the ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology Award criteria for advanced clothes dryers.8 Table II.7 shows the proposed efficiency levels for the vented clothes dryer product classes.

    7ENERGY STAR Program Requirements Product Specification for Clothes Dryers: Eligibility Criteria Version 1.0, (May 19, 2014) (Available at: http://www.energystar.gov//products/certified-products/detail/17517/partners).

    8ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology Award Criteria for Advanced Clothes Dryers, (May 13, 2014) (Available at: http://www.energystar.gov/about/awards/energy-star-emerging-technology-award/2014-emerging-technology-award-advanced-clothes-dryers).

    Table II.7—Efficiency Levels Under Consideration for Vented Clothes Dryers Level Efficiency level description Integrated efficiency level (CEF)
  • (lb/kWh)
  • Electric standard Electric compact
  • (120V)
  • Electric compact
  • (240V)
  • Gas
    Baseline DOE Standard w/Adjusted Appendix D2 Energy Use 3.11 2.10 2.74 2.77 1 Gap Fill 3.31 2.60 2.92 2.94 2 Gap Fill 3.52 3.11 3.09 3.12 3 DOE Standard 3.73 3.61 3.27 3.30 4 ENERGY STAR Performance Specification 3.93 3.80 3.45 3.48 5 ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology Award 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.0

    For the ventless electric compact (240V) clothes dryer and ventless electric combination washer/dryer product classes, DOE is again proposing an incremental efficiency level associated with the current standard level nominal values. For ventless electric compact (240V) clothes dryers, DOE is proposing an additional gap fill level between the baseline and the current standard level nominal value. DOE also plans to consider efficiency levels corresponding to the Version 1.0 ENERGY STAR performance specification requirements and the ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology Award criteria. For ventless electric combination washer/dryers, because limited data are available regarding the efficiency of products measured according to the new appendix D2 test procedure, DOE is tentatively proposing to consider efficiency levels corresponding to the relative increase in efficiency levels considered for the 2011 Direct Final Rule analysis. For ventless electric standard clothes dryers, DOE notes that one recently introduced ventless electric standard clothes dryer qualifies for the ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology Award. DOE plans to consider an efficiency level associated with this unit. However, DOE is unaware of any data to determine other incremental efficiency levels for ventless electric standard clothes dryers. The proposed efficiency levels for the ventless clothes dryer product classes are presented in Table II.8 and Table II.9.

    Table II.8—Efficiency Levels Under Consideration for Ventless Electric Standard and Compact (240V) Clothes Dryers Level Efficiency level description Integrated efficiency level (CEF)
  • (lb/kWh)
  • Electric
  • standard
  • Electric
  • compact
  • (240V)
  • Baseline DOE Standard w/Adjusted Appendix D2 Energy Use N/A 2.33 1 Gap Fill N/A 2.44 2 DOE Standard N/A 2.55 3 ENERGY STAR Performance Specification N/A 2.68 4 ENERGY STAR 2014 Emerging Technology Award 4.5 4.3
    Table II.9—Efficiency Levels Under Consideration for Ventless Electric Combination Washer/Dryers Level Efficiency level description Integrated
  • efficiency level (CEF)
  • (lb/kWh)
  • Electric
  • combination
  • washer/dryer
  • Baseline DOE Standard w/Adjusted Appendix D2 Energy Use 2.00 1 DOE Standard 2.08 2 2011 Direct Final Rule Analysis Gap Fill 2.26 3 EL 2 + 1.5 Watt Standby 2.29 4 EL 3 + 0.08 Watt Standby 2.36 5 Gap Fill 2.46 6 Max-Tech (Heat Pump) 3.55

    Issue D.3 DOE seeks input concerning the efficiency levels it tentatively plans to use for each product class for collecting incremental cost data from manufacturers of residential clothes dryers. In particular, DOE seeks additional data on the efficiency of products measured according to the new appendix D2 test procedure to characterize the range of efficiencies available on the market for each product class. DOE also seeks input on appropriate maximum technologically feasible efficiency levels whether any additional intermediate efficiency levels should be considered and the basis for why those levels should be selected.

    Approach for Determining the Cost-Efficiency Relationship

    In order to create the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE intends to use an efficiency-level approach, supplemented with reverse engineering (physical teardowns and testing of existing products in the market), to identify the incremental cost and efficiency improvement associated with each efficiency level.

    DOE will analyze technologies and associated costs representative of baseline units as part of the reverse-engineering process. DOE intends to perform reverse engineering for each product class being analyzed. Whenever possible, DOE will attempt to reverse engineer test units that share similar platforms to better identify the efficiency benefits and costs of design options. As units are torn down, all design options used in them are noted and reviewed. Prior to tear down, DOE also plans to conduct limited testing to establish what control strategies are being used by manufacturers in conjunction with design options and platform design. Unit testing may include the measurement of disaggregated energy consumption to identify the relationship between particular components and control strategies taken by manufacturers to achieve higher efficiency levels. As part of the reverse-engineering process, DOE will attempt to generate a cost-efficiency relationship for each efficiency level identified. DOE also requests incremental cost data for each efficiency level. DOE intends the data to represent the average industry-wide incremental production cost for each technology.

    To be useful in the manufacturer impact analysis, manufacturer cost information should reflect the variability in baseline models, design strategies, and cost structures that can exist among manufacturers. This information allows DOE to better understand the industry and its associated cost structure, and helps DOE predict the most likely impact of new energy efficiency regulations. For example, the reverse-engineering methodology allows DOE to estimate the “green-field” costs of building new facilities, yet the majority of plants in any given industry are comprised of a mix of assets in different stages of depreciation. Interviews with manufacturers not only help DOE refine its capital expenditure estimates, but they also allow DOE to refine its estimates regarding depreciation and other financial parameters.

    DOE will refine the cost-efficiency data it generates through the reverse-engineering activities with information obtained through follow-up manufacturer interviews and, as necessary, information contained in the market and technology assessment and further review of publicly available cost and performance information.

    Issue D.5 DOE requests feedback on using an efficiency-level approach supplemented with reverse engineering to determine the relationship between manufacturer cost and energy efficiency for residential clothes dryers.

    Issue D.6 DOE also requests incremental cost data for each clothes dryer efficiency level as well as information about the design options associated with each efficiency level. DOE intends the data to represent the average industry-wide incremental production cost for each technology.

    EPCA also requires DOE to consider any lessening of the utility or the performance of a covered product likely to result from the imposition of a new standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) As part of its analysis of higher efficiency levels, DOE will consider whether new standards may impact the utility of residential clothes dryers.

    Issue D.7 DOE seeks comment on whether any new standards may impact the utility of clothes dryers. If such impacts exist, can the effects be quantified? If so, how?

    E. Markups Analysis

    To carry out the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) calculations, DOE needs to determine the cost to the residential consumer of baseline products that satisfies the currently applicable standards, and the cost of the more-efficient unit the consumer would purchase under potential amended standards. By applying a multiplier called a “markup” to the manufacturer's selling price, DOE is able to estimate the residential consumer's price.

    For the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE used distribution channels, based on data from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), to characterize how products pass to the consumer. For clothes dryers, the main actors are manufacturers and retailers. Thus, DOE analyzed a manufacturer-to-consumer distribution channel consisting of three parties: (1) The manufacturers producing the products; (2) the retailers purchasing the products from manufacturers and selling them to consumers; and (3) the consumers who purchase the products. DOE plans to use the same approach in the current rulemaking.

    As was done in the last rulemaking and consistent with the approach followed for other energy consuming products, DOE will determine an average manufacturer markup by considering the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers of appliances whose product range includes clothes dryers. DOE then revises the initial manufacturer markup estimate based on feedback received during manufacturer interviews. DOE will determine an average retailer markup by analyzing both economic census data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the annual SEC 10-K reports filed by publicly traded retailers.

    In addition to manufacturer and retailer markups, DOE will include sales tax in its retail price calculations. DOE will use an Internet source, the Sales Tax Clearinghouse, to calculate applicable sales taxes.

    Issue E.1 DOE seeks input from stakeholders on whether the distribution channels described above are still relevant for residential clothes dryers. DOE also welcomes comments concerning its proposed approach to developing estimates of markups for clothes dryers.

    F. Energy Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy analysis is to assess the energy-savings potential of different product efficiencies. DOE uses the annual energy consumption and energy-savings potential in the LCC and PBP analyses to establish the savings in consumer operating costs at various product efficiency levels. In contrast to the DOE test procedure, which provides a measure of the energy use, energy efficiency or annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle, the energy use analysis captures a range of operating conditions for clothes dryers in U.S. homes.

    For the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed distributions of values for several operating conditions, including number of cycles, remaining moisture content (RMC), and load weights that reflect its best estimate of the range of practices found in U.S. homes. 76 FR 22508. DOE also evaluated the indirect impact of a clothes dryer standard on heating and cooling loads in a household. To calculate this impact, DOE first characterized the location of the clothes dryers in a conditioned space based on the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), and the 2009 American Housing Survey (AHS). For these installations, DOE utilized the results from a European Union study about the impacts of clothes dryers on home heating and cooling loads to determine the appropriate factor to apply to the total clothes dryer energy use.9

    9 I. Rüdenauer and C.O. Gensch, Energy demand of tumble dryers with respect to differences in technology and ambient conditions. Report commissioned by European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers (CECED) (January 13, 2004) (Available at: www.oeko.de/oekodoc/202/2004-009-en.pdf).

    To determine the field energy use of products that would be required to meet amended standard levels, DOE proposes to use data from the EIA's 2009 RECS, or the most recent such survey available from EIA.10 RECS is a national sample survey of housing units that collects statistical information on the consumption of and expenditures for energy in housing units along with data on energy-related characteristics of the housing units and occupants. RECS provides sufficient information to establish the type (product class) of clothes dryer used in each household. As a result, DOE will be able to develop household samples for each of the considered product classes.

    10 U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2009 RECS Survey Data (2013) (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/).

    DOE requests comment or seeks input from stakeholders on the following issues pertaining to the energy use analysis:

    Issue F.1 Approaches for specifying the typical annual energy consumption of residential clothes dryers;

    Issue F.2 Data sources that DOE can use to characterize the variability in annual energy consumption of clothes dryers.

    Issue F.3 Data sources to characterize the indirect impact of dryer energy use on heating and cooling loads of a household.

    G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    The purpose of the LCC and PBP analysis is to analyze the effects of potential amended energy conservation standards on consumers of residential clothes dryers by determining how a potential amended standard affects the consumers' operating expenses (usually decreased) and total installed costs (usually increased).

    DOE intends to analyze data input variability and uncertainty by performing the LCC and PBP calculations on a representative sample of households from RECS for the considered product classes using Monte Carlo simulations and probability distributions. The analysis results are a distribution of results showing the range of LCC savings and PBPs for a given efficiency level relative to the baseline level.

    Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are categorized as: (1) Inputs for establishing the purchase expense, otherwise known as the total installed cost, and (2) inputs for calculating the operating expense. The primary inputs for establishing the total installed cost are the baseline consumer price, standard-level consumer price increases, and installation costs. Baseline consumer prices and standard-level consumer price increases will be determined by applying markups to manufacturer price estimates. The installation cost is added to the consumer price to arrive at a total installed cost.

    In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE derived the installation costs from RS Means 2008. 76 FR 22513. DOE plans to use similar data sources for this rulemaking, with adjustments to reflect current-day labor and material prices as well as to scale installation cost for higher-efficiency products based on equipment weight and/or dimensions.

    Issue G.1 DOE seeks input on whether clothes dryer installation costs scale with equipment weight and/or dimensions.

    The primary inputs for calculating the operating costs are product energy consumption, product efficiency, electricity prices and forecasts, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates.

    Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components that have failed in the appliance, whereas maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment. In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE derived annualized maintenance and repair frequencies based on Consumer Reports data on repair and maintenance issues for clothes dryers during the first 4 years of ownership. DOE estimated that on average 1.5 percent of electric and 1.75 percent of gas clothes dryers are maintained or repaired each year. Based on RS Means Facilities Maintenance & Repair 2010 Cost Data,11 DOE also estimated that an average service call and any necessary repair or maintenance takes about 2.5 hours. DOE further estimated that the average material cost is equal to one-half of the equipment cost. The values for cost per service call were then annualized by multiplying by the frequencies and dividing by the average equipment lifetime of 16 years. 76 FR 22514. DOE plans to use similar data sources for this rulemaking.

    11 Available at: http://rsmeans.reedconstructiondata.com/60300.aspx.

    In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE also assumed that repair costs vary in direct proportion with the product price at higher efficiency levels as replacement costs for more-efficient components are likely to be greater than replacement costs for components in baseline products.

    Issue G.2 DOE seeks stakeholder input on the approach for estimating repair and maintenance costs for more efficient clothes dryers. DOE also seeks stakeholder comment on the assumption that repair costs vary in direct proportion to product price as well as historical repair cost data as a function of efficiency.

    DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts of potential standard levels relative to a base case that reflects the market in the absence of amended standards. DOE plans to develop market-share efficiency data (i.e., the distribution of product shipments by efficiency) for the product classes DOE is considering, for the year in which compliance with any amended or new standards would be required. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from new or amended standards.

    Issue G.4 DOE seeks stakeholder input and data on the fraction of clothes dryers sold that exceed the minimum energy efficiency standards. DOE also requests information on expected trends in product efficiency over the next five years.

    H. Shipments Analysis

    DOE uses shipment projections by product class and efficiency level in its analysis of the national impacts of potential standards, as well as in the manufacturer impact analysis.

    In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE developed a shipments model for clothes dryers driven by historical shipments data. 76 FR 22516. The key drivers of the shipments model included the new owner and replacement markets.

    Issue H.1 DOE seeks stakeholder input and data showing the distribution of shipments by product class.

    In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE modeled the decision to repair or replace equipment for existing owners and the impact that decision would have on the shipments model. DOE estimated how increases in product purchase price and decreases in product operating costs due to standards affect product shipments.12

    12 DOE-Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment, Residential Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners, chapter 9 (2011) (Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010-0053).

    Issue H.2 DOE seeks input and data on factors that influence a consumer's decisions to repair or replace failed products.

    I. National Impact Analysis

    The purpose of the national impact analysis (NIA) is to estimate aggregate impacts of potential efficiency standards at the national level. Impacts reported by DOE include the national energy savings (NES) from potential standards and the national net present value (NPV) of the total consumer benefits. The NIA considers lifetime impacts of potential standards on clothes dryers shipped in a 30-year period that begins with the expected compliance date for new or amended standards.

    To develop the NES, DOE calculates annual energy consumption of clothes dryers in households for the base case and each standards case. To develop the national NPV of consumer benefits from potential standards, DOE calculates national annual energy expenditures and annual product expenditures for the base case and the standards cases. DOE calculates total annual energy expenditures using data on annual energy consumption in each case, forecasted average annual energy prices, and shipment projections. The difference each year between operating cost savings and increased product expenditures is the net savings or net costs.

    A key component of DOE's estimates of NES and NPV is the product energy efficiency forecasted over time for the base case and for each of the standards cases. In the 2011 Direct Final Rule, DOE based projections of base-case shipment-weighted efficiency (SWEF) for the clothes dryer product classes on growth rates determined from historical data provided by AHAM.13 For this rulemaking, DOE plans on considering recent trends in efficiency and input from stakeholders to update product energy efficiency forecasts.

    13Id. chapter 10.

    Issue I.1 DOE seeks historical SWEF data for residential clothes dryers by product class and stakeholder input regarding future trends in efficiency.

    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) is to estimate the financial impact of potential energy conservation standards on manufacturers of residential clothes dryers and to evaluate the potential impact of such standards on competition, employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an industry cash-flow model used to estimate a range of potential impacts on manufacturer profitability. The qualitative part of the MIA addresses a proposed standard's potential impacts on manufacturing capacity and industry competition, as well as factors such as product characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and key issues from the manufacturers' perspective.

    As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of potential energy conservation standards on small business manufacturers of covered products. DOE intends to use the Small Business Administration's (SBA) small business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses. The size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description.14 Manufacturing of residential clothes dryers is classified under NAICS 335224, “Household Laundry Equipment Manufacturing.” The SBA sets a threshold of 1,000 employees or less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category. This 1,000-employee threshold would include all employees in a business's parent company and any other subsidiaries.

    14 Available at: http://www.sba.gov/content/small-business-size-standards.

    DOE intends to conduct a market survey using publicly available information to identify potential small manufacturers using the above-mentioned size threshold. In identifying potential small businesses, DOE generally uses its Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS), industry trade association membership directories (including AHAM), individual company Web sites, and market research tools (e.g., Hoovers reports) to create a list of companies that manufacture or sell products covered by this rulemaking.

    Issue J.1 DOE requests comment on whether there are any small business manufacturers of residential clothes dryers that it should consider in its analysis.

    III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by May 11, 2015, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of new or amended energy conservations standards for residential clothes dryers. After the close of the comment period, DOE will collect data, conduct analyses, and review public comments, as needed. These actions will aid in the development of a NOPR for residential clothes dryers if DOE decides to amend the standards for such products.

    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the comment period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about this rulemaking should contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945, or via email at [email protected]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 23, 2015. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07058 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0496; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-101-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-18-18, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. AD 2005-18-18 currently requires inspections of certain wire bundles in the left and right engine-to-wing aft fairings for discrepancies; installation of back-to-back p-clamps between the wire and hydraulic supply tube at the aft end of the right-hand strut only; and associated re-routing of the wire bundles, if necessary. Since we issued AD 2005-18-18, we have determined that the service information referenced in AD 2005-18-18 did not adequately address fuel shutoff valve (FSV) wires at the aft end of the struts. This proposed AD would add an installation of spiral cable wrap on FSV wires at the aft end of the strut, for both left and right engines, and related investigative and corrective actions. We are proposing this AD to prevent chafing between the wire bundle and the structure of the aft fairing, which could result in electrical arcing and subsequent ignition of flammable vapors and possible uncontrollable fire.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0496.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0496; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6498; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0496; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-101-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    On August 31, 2005, we issued AD 2005-18-18, Amendment 39-14258 (70 FR 53554, September 9, 2005), for certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2005-18-18 requires inspections of certain wire bundles in the left and right engine-to-wing aft fairings for discrepancies; installation of back-to-back p-clamps between the wire and hydraulic supply tube at the aft end of the right-hand strut only; and associated re-routing of the wire bundles, if necessary. AD 2005-18-18 resulted from a report indicating that a circuit breaker for the fuel shutoff valve tripped due to a wire that chafed against the structure in the flammable leakage zone of the aft fairing, causing a short circuit. We issued AD 2005-18-18 to prevent chafing between the wire bundle and the structure of the aft fairing, which could result in electrical arcing and subsequent ignition of flammable vapors and possible uncontrollable fire.

    Actions Since AD 2005-18-18, Amendment 39-14258 (70 FR 53554, September 9, 2005), Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2005-18-18, Amendment 39-14258 (70 FR 53554, September 9, 2005), we received a report that the service information referenced in AD 2005-18-18 did not adequately address FSV wires at the aft end of the strut, for both left and right engine struts. The proposed installation of tetrafluoroethylene spiral cable wrap on the FSV wires at the aft end of the strut would provide additional wiring protection.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 757-28A0073 and 757-28A0074, both Revision 2, both dated June 4, 2009. The service information describes procedures for inspecting certain wire bundles in the left and right engine-to-wing aft fairings for discrepancies; installing back-to-back p-clamps between the wire and hydraulic supply tube at the aft end of the right-hand strut only; associated re-routing of the wire bundles, if necessary; and installing spiral cable wrap on FSV wires on the aft ends of the left and right engine struts, and related investigative and corrective actions. Refer to this service information for information on the procedures and compliance times. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2005-18-18, Amendment 39-14258 (70 FR 53554, September 9, 2005). This proposed AD would add a requirement to install spiral cable wrap on FSV wires at the aft end of the strut, for both left and right engines, and related investigative and corrective actions. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information identified previously.

    The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.

    The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 346 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection of certain wire bundles, and p-clamp installation [retained actions from AD 2005-18-18, Amendment 39-14258 (70 FR 53554, September 9, 2005)] Between 16 and 44 work-hours × $85 per hour = Between $1,360 and $3,740 $600 Between $1,960 and $4,340 Between $678,160 and $1,501,640. Installation of spiral cable wrap [new proposed action] 10 work-hours × $85 per hour = $850 $10 $860 $297,560. Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-18-18, Amendment 39-14258 (70 FR 53554, September 9, 2005), and adding the following new AD: The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-0496; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-101-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 11, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2005-18-18, Amendment 39-14258 (70 FR 53554, September 9, 2005).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; equipped with Rolls-Royce engines; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 757-28A0073 and 757-28A0074, both Revision 2, both dated June 4, 2009.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that the service information referenced in AD 2005-18-18, Amendment 39-14258 (70 FR 53554, September 9, 2005), did not adequately address fuel shutoff valve (FSV) wires at the aft end of the strut, for both left and right engine struts. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing between the wire bundle and the structure of the aft fairing, which could result in electrical arcing and subsequent ignition of flammable vapors and possible uncontrollable fire.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Retained One-Time Inspections/Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2005-18-18, Amendment 39-14258 (70 FR 53554, September 9, 2005), with new service information. Within 60 months after October 14, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-18-18), do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Accomplish the detailed inspections for discrepancies of the wire bundles in the left and right engine-to-wing aft fairings, and applicable and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary, as applicable, by doing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletins listed in Table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0073 or 757-28A0074, both Revision 2, both dated June 4, 2009, as applicable. Accomplish any related investigative and corrective actions before further flight, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin. For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”

    Table 1 to Paragraph (g)(1) of This AD—Airplane Models and Service Bulletins Boeing airplanes Boeing alert service bulletin Revision level Date Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes 757-28A0073 Original November 20, 2003. Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes 757-28A0073 1 February 24, 2005. Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes 757-28A0073 2 June 4, 2009. Model 757-300 series airplanes 757-28A0074 Original November 20, 2003. Model 757-300 series airplanes 757-28A0074 1 February 24, 2005. Model 757-300 series airplanes 757-28A0074 2 June 4, 2009.

    (2) Install back-to-back p-clamps between the wire and hydraulic supply tube at the aft end of the right-hand strut only; and re-route the wire bundles, if necessary; by doing all the applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, use only the service information identified in paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) and (g)(2)(iv) of this AD, as applicable.

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0073, Revision 1, dated February 24, 2005.

    (ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0073, Revision 2, dated June 4, 2009.

    (iii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0074, Revision 1, dated February 24, 2005.

    (iv) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0074, Revision 2, dated June 4, 2009.

    (h) New Spiral Cable Wrap Installation

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install spiral cable wrap on FSV wires at the aft end of the strut, for both left and right engines, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0073 (for Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes) or 757-28A0074 (for Model 757-300 series airplanes), both Revision 2, both dated June 4, 2009. Do the related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 2005-18-18, Amendment 39-14258 (70 FR 53554, September 9, 2005), are approved as AMOCs for paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6498; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]gov.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 12, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06782 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0248; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-143-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-08-23, which applies to all The Boeing Company Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2013-08-23 currently requires adding design features to detect electrical faults and to detect a pump running in an empty fuel tank. Since we issued AD 2013-08-23, we have determined that it is necessary to clarify the requirements for the design features and to remove a terminating action for certain inspections. This proposed AD would clarify certain requirements and remove a terminating action. This proposed AD would also provide an optional method of compliance for the proposed actions. We are proposing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-766-5683; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0248.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0248; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Serj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5254; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-0248; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-143-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    On April 10, 2013, we issued AD 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013), for all The Boeing Company Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2013-08-23 requires adding design features to detect electrical faults and to detect a pump running in an empty fuel tank. AD 2013-08-23 resulted from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We issued AD 2013-08-23 to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    Actions Since AD 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013), Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013), we have determined that it is necessary to clarify the requirements for the design features and to remove a terminating action for certain inspections. In addition, The Boeing Company has issued new service information, which provides optional alternative methods of compliance for the actions required by AD 2013-08-23.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information, which describes procedures for changing the fuel pump control and indication system wiring:

    • Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-256, dated June 24, 2014; and

    • Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-137, dated June 24, 2014.

    We have also reviewed Appendixes B, C, and D of Boeing Special Compliance Item Report MDC-02K1003, Revision M, dated July 25, 2014, which include Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALIs), and short-term extensions.

    Boeing Service Bulletin MD11-28-137, dated June 24, 2014, specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A133, dated June 5, 2014. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A133, dated June 5, 2014, describes procedures for replacing the fuel pump control relays with fault current detectors and changing the fuel tank boost/transfer pump wire termination.

    Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-256, dated June 24, 2014, specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A253, dated June 5, 2014. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A253, dated June 5, 2014, describes procedures for replacing the fuel pump control relays with fault current detectors and changing the fuel tank boost/transfer pump wire termination.

    This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

    Clarification of the Requirements for the Design Features

    In the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this proposed AD, we have added the text “for the auxiliary fuel tank” to the last sentence to clarify that, for airplanes on which Boeing-installed auxiliary fuel tanks are removed, only the actions specified in this AD for the auxiliary fuel tanks are not required.

    In paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD, we have added the text “and each pump that is partially covered by a lowering fuel level” and “main tanks” to the first sentence to clarify the pumps that must have a protective device installed.

    Removal of a Terminating Action for Certain Actions

    Paragraph (h) of AD 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013), specifies, in part, that accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of that AD terminates certain inspections and tests required by paragraph (a) of AD 2002-13-10, Amendment 39-12798 (67 FR 45053, July 8, 2002), and repetitive inspections required by paragraph (j) of AD 2011-11-05, Amendment 39-16704 (76 FR 31462, June 1, 2011), for pumps affected by those ADs. However, we have determined that accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2013-08-23 (which is restated in paragraph (g)(1) of this proposed AD) does not terminate those actions and, therefore, we have not retained the terminating action in this proposed AD. The actions specified in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD (i.e., a new optional method of compliance in lieu of paragraph (g) of this proposed AD) would extend the compliance times for certain inspections and tests required by paragraph (a) of AD 2002-13-10, and repetitive inspections required by paragraph (j) of AD 2011-11-05, from 18-month intervals to 24-month intervals. We have added paragraph (j) to this proposed AD to specify that accomplishing the actions in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD would extend certain repetitive intervals.

    Revised Compliance Time

    We have determined that it is appropriate to allow additional time to accomplish the design features and requirements specified in this proposed AD. Therefore, we have added a compliance time “as of 48 months after the effective date of this AD” to paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. We have determined that this extension of the compliance time will provide an acceptable level of safety.

    Related AD

    On November 12, 2009, we issued AD 2008-06-21 R1, Amendment 39-16100 (74 FR 61504, November 25, 2009), for all McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-10-10 and DC-10-10F airplanes, Model DC-10-15 airplanes, Model DC-10-30 and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes, Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes, Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes, and Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2008-06-21 R1 requires revising the maintenance program or the Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate inspections and CDCCLs.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013), clarify certain requirements, and remove a certain terminating action. This proposed AD would also provide a new optional method of compliance for the actions required by AD 2013-08-23.

    This proposed AD specifies to revise certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with these actions and CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (k) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions and CDCCLs that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 341 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Installing design features using a method approved by the FAA [retained action from AD 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013)] 152 work-hours × $85 per hour = $12,920 $137,500 $150,420 $51,923,220 Installing design features using service information specified in paragraph (h) of this proposed AD (including revising the maintenance/inspection program) [new option of this proposed AD] 98 work-hours × $85 per hour = $8,330 109,000 117,330 40,478,850
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013), and adding the following new AD: The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-0248; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-143-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 11, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces AD 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013).

    (2) This AD affects AD 2008-06-21 R1, Amendment 39-16100 (74 FR 61504, November 25, 2009).

    (3) This AD affects AD 2002-13-10, Amendment 39-12798 (67 FR 45053, July 8, 2002).

    (4) This AD affects AD 2011-11-05, Amendment 39-16704 (76 FR 31462, June 1, 2011).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.

    (1) DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F airplanes.

    (2) MD-10-10F, MD-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-11F airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a fuel system review conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Retained Criteria for Operation, With Clarifications and New Compliance Time

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (g) of AD 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013), with clarification of actions for airplanes with auxiliary fuel tanks removed, clarification of the pumps that must have a protective device installed, and a new compliance time. Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD: As of 48 months after the effective date of this AD, no person may operate any airplane affected by this AD unless an amended type certificate or supplemental type certificate that incorporates the design features and requirements described in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD has been approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, and those design features are installed on the airplane to meet the criteria specified in 14 CFR Section 25.981(a) and (d), at Amendment level 25-125. For airplanes on which Boeing-installed auxiliary fuel tanks are removed, the actions specified in this AD for the auxiliary fuel tanks are not required.

    (1) For all airplanes: Each electrically powered alternating current (AC) fuel pump installed in any fuel tank that normally empties during flight and each pump that is partially covered by a lowering fuel level—such as main tanks, center wing tanks, auxiliary fuel tanks installed by the airplane manufacturer, and tail tanks—must have a protective device installed to detect electrical faults that can cause arcing and burn through of the fuel pump housing and pump electrical connector. The same device must shut off the pump by automatically removing electrical power from the pump when such faults are detected. When a fuel pump is shut off resulting from detection of an electrical fault, the device must stay latched off, until the fault is cleared through maintenance action and the pump is verified safe for operation.

    (2) For airplanes with a 2-person flight crew: Additional design features, if not originally installed by the airplane manufacturer, must be installed to meet 3 criteria: To detect a running fuel pump in a tank that is normally emptied during flight, to provide an indication to the flight crew that the tank is empty, and to automatically shut off that fuel pump. The prospective pump indication and shutoff system must automatically shut off each pump in case the flight crew does not shut off a pump running dry in an empty tank within 60 seconds after each fuel tank is emptied. An airplane flight manual supplement (AFMS) that includes flight crew manual pump shutoff procedures in the Limitations Section of the AFMS must be submitted to the Los Angeles ACO, FAA, for approval.

    (3) For airplanes with a 3-person flight crew: Additional design features, if not originally installed by the airplane manufacturer, must be installed to detect when a fuel pump in a tank that is normally emptied during flight is running in an empty fuel tank, and provide an indication to the flight crew that the tank is empty. The flight engineer must manually shut off each pump running dry in an empty tank within 60 seconds after the tank is emptied. The AFMS Limitations section must be revised to specify that this pump shutoff must be done by the flight engineer.

    (4) For all airplanes with tanks that normally empty during flight: Separate means must be provided to detect and shut off a pump that was previously commanded to be shut off automatically or manually but remained running in an empty tank during flight.

    (h) New Optional Method of Compliance

    In lieu of doing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.

    (1) For MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) As of 48 months after the effective date of this AD, change the fuel pump control and indication system wiring, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28-137, dated June 24, 2014.

    (ii) Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this AD: Replace the fuel pump control relays with fault current detectors, and change the fuel tank boost/transfer pump wire termination, in accordance with Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A133, dated June 5, 2014.

    (2) For Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10), DC-10-40, DC-10-40F, MD-10-10F, and MD-10-30F airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) As of 48 months after the effective date of this AD, change the fuel pump control and indication system wiring, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin DC10-28-256, dated June 24, 2014.

    (ii) Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this AD: Replace the fuel pump control relays with fault current detectors, and change the fuel tank boost/transfer pump wire termination, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A253, dated June 5, 2014.

    (3) For all airplanes: Within 30 days after accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALIs), and short-term extensions specified in Appendix B, C, and D of Special Compliance Item (SCI) Report MDC-02K1003, Revision M, dated July 25, 2014. The initial compliance time for accomplishing the actions specified in the ALIs is at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of this AD. Revising of the maintenance or inspection program required by this paragraph terminates the requirements in paragraph (g) and (h) of AD 2008-06-21 R1, Amendment 39-16100 (74 FR 61504, November 25, 2009).

    (i) At the applicable time specified in Appendix C of SCI Report MDC-02K1003, Revision M, dated July 25, 2014, except as provided by Appendix D of SCI Report MDC-02K1003, Revision M, dated July 25, 2014.

    (ii) Within 30 days after accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, or CDCCLs

    If the option in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD is accomplished: After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised, as provided by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (j) Compliance Time Extension in Related ADs

    Accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, as applicable, extends the 18-month repetitive inspections and tests required by paragraph (a) of AD 2002-13-10, Amendment 39-12798 (67 FR 45053, July 8, 2002), and the 18-month repetitive inspections required by paragraph (j) of AD 2011-11-05, Amendment 39-16704 (76 FR 31462, June 1, 2011), to 24-month intervals for pumps affected by those ADs, regardless if the pump is installed in a tank that normally empties, provided the remaining actions required by those two ADs have been accomplished.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2013-08-23, Amendment 39-17441 (78 FR 24037, April 24, 2013), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Serj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5254; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-766-5683; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 11, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06746 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0673; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-034-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France) AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters. This proposed AD would require inspecting the swashplate assembly rotating star to determine whether a ferrule was installed. If a ferrule exists, this proposed AD would require inspecting the rotating star for a crack and removing any cracked rotating star. This proposed AD is prompted by a report that reconditioning the rotating swashplate per a certain repair procedure could result in the rotating star cracking. The proposed actions are intended to detect a crack in the rotating star and prevent failure of the rotating star and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to the “Mail” address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0673.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

    Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD No. 2014-0132R1, dated June 2, 2014, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter France) Model AS 350 B, BA, BB, B1, B2, B3, D, AS 355 E, F, F1, F2, N, NP, EC 130 B4, and T2 helicopters if equipped with a swashplate assembly with a rotating star, part number (P/N) 350A371003-04, P/N 350A371003-05, P/N 350A371003-06, P/N 350A371003-07, or P/N 350A371003-08. EASA advises that during a repair of a helicopter, it was discovered that rotating swashplates reconditioned in accordance with a certain repair procedure could experience a high stress level. This condition, if not corrected, could affect the service life of the part. To address this unsafe condition, EASA AD No. 2014-0132R1 requires repetitive inspections and replacement of the rotating star.

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. EC130 62A010 for Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters; ASB No. AS355 62.00.33 for Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters; and ASB No. AS350 62.00.34 for Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350BB, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350D, and military version AS350L1 helicopters; all Revision 0 and all dated April 28, 2014.

    The ASBs report that a certain repair sheet instruction, which requires reconditioning the rotating swashplate by machining and adding a steel ferrule to accommodate a swashplate bearing, potentially affects the service life limit specified in the airworthiness limitations section. The ASBs provide procedures for inspecting the swashplate assembly's rotating star for a ferrule and if a ferrule exists, inspecting for a crack. The ASBs call for replacing the rotating star before further flight if a crack exists, and before December 31, 2014, if a ferrule is present and there are no cracks. If there is no ferrule, the ASBs require no additional action. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 165 hours time-in-service (TIS), visually inspecting the swashplate assembly to determine whether a ferrule is installed with the rotating star. If no ferrule exists, no further action would be needed. If a ferrule is installed, the proposed AD would require, before further flight, dye-penetrant inspecting the rotating star for a crack. The proposed AD would also require removing the rotating star and all attachment hardware before further flight if the rotating star has a crack, or within 160 hours TIS if the rotating star has a ferrule installed but does not have a crack.

    This proposed AD would also prohibit installing a rotating star with a ferrule.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires reporting inspection findings to Airbus Helicopters. This proposed AD would make no such requirement. The EASA AD does not apply to Airbus Model AS350C and AS350D1 helicopters, whereas this proposed AD would apply to those models. The EASA AD applies to Model AS350BB helicopters, and this proposed AD would not because that model is not type certificated in the United States. The EASA AD would require replacing the rotating star, unless already accomplished, by December 31, 2014, while we would require replacing the rotating star within 160 hours TIS, unless already accomplished.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,132 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs would average $85 a work hour. Based on these estimates, we would expect the following costs:

    • Visually inspecting the swashplate assembly would require 0.25 work-hour for a labor cost of about $21 per inspection. No parts would be needed for a total cost of about $21 per inspection per helicopter, or about $23,772 for the U.S. fleet.

    • Dye-penetrant inspecting the rotating star would require 1 work-hour for a labor cost of about $85 per helicopter. No parts would be needed for a total cost of $85 per inspection helicopter and $96,220 for the U.S. fleet.

    • Replacing the rotating star, ferrule, and associated parts would require 16 work hours and parts would cost $8,354, for a total cost of $9,714 per helicopter.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

    2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2015-0673; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-034-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3,AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, AS355NP, EC130B4, and EC130T2 helicopters with a swashplate assembly with rotating star, part number (P/N) 350A371003-04, 350A371003-05, 350A371003-06, 350A371003-07, or 350A371003-08, certificated in any category.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a rotating star in a main rotor blade (M/R) swashplate assembly. This condition could result in loss of the M/R pitch control and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 26, 2015.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 165 hours time-in-service (TIS), visually inspect the swashplate assembly to determine whether a ferrule is installed on the rotating star. If the ferrule is not visible, use a magnetic retriever positioned in Area (X) as shown in the pictures under paragraph 3.B.2.b., Accomplishment Instructions, of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. EC130 62A010, ASB No. AS350 62.00.34, or ASB No. AS355 62.00.33, all Revision 0, and all dated April 28, 2014, whichever is applicable to your helicopter, to determine whether the ferrule is installed. The magnetic retriever will be magnetized if a ferrule is installed.

    (2) If a ferrule is not installed, no further action is needed.

    (3) If a ferrule is installed on the rotating star, before further flight, dye-penetrant inspect the rotating star for a crack in areas “Z” depicted in Figure 1 of Airbus Helicopters ASB No. EC130 62A010, ASB No. AS350 62.00.34, or ASB No. AS355 62.00.33, all Revision 0, and all dated April 28, 2014, as applicable to your model helicopter.

    (i) If the rotating star has a crack, before further flight, remove from service the rotating star; ferrule; and the screws, washers and nuts used to attach the pitch change rods, compass, and the rotating star deflector.

    (ii) If the rotating star does not have a crack, within 160 hours TIS, remove from service the rotating star; ferrule; and the screws, washers and nuts used to attach the pitch change rods, compass, and the rotating star deflector.

    (4) Do not install a rotating star P/N 350A371003-04, 350A371003-05, 350A371003-06, 350A371003-07, or 350A371003-08 with a ferrule.

    (f) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (h) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2014-0132R1, dated June 2, 2014. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

    (i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6200, Main Rotor System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 18, 2015. Lance T. Gant, Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06805 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 15 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0540] Homeopathic Product Regulation: Evaluating the Food and Drug Administration's Regulatory Framework After a Quarter-Century; Public Hearing AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public hearing; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public hearing to obtain information and comments from stakeholders about the current use of human drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic, as well as the Agency's regulatory framework for such products. These products include prescription drugs and biological products labeled as homeopathic and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs labeled as homeopathic. FDA is seeking participants for the public hearing and written comments from all interested parties, including, but not limited to, consumers, patients, caregivers, health care professionals, patient groups, and industry. FDA is seeking input on a number of specific questions, but is interested in any other pertinent information participants would like to share.

    DATES:

    The public hearing will be held on April 20 and 21, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The meeting may be extended or may end early depending on the level of public participation. Register to attend or provide oral testimony at the hearing by April 13, 2015. See Registration and Request to Provide Oral Testimony for information on how to register or make an oral presentation at the hearing. Written or electronic comments will be accepted until June 22, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public hearing will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, rm. 1503A, Silver Spring, MD, 20993-0002. Participants must enter through Building 1 and undergo security screening. For parking and security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lesley DeRenzo, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20903-0002, 240-402-4612, FAX: 301-847-8747, [email protected]; or Cynthia Ng, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20903-0002, 301-796-7512, FAX: 301-847-8747, [email protected]

    Registration and Request to Provide Oral Testimony: The public hearing is free and seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. If you wish to attend or make an oral presentation, see section III (Attendance and/or Participation in the Public Hearing) for information on how to register and the deadline for registration. If you cannot attend in person, information about how you can access a live Webcast will be located at https://collaboration.fda.gov/hprapril2015/.

    Comments and Transcripts: You may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. You should annotate and organize your comments to identify the specific questions or topic to which they refer. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Please identify your comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Transcripts of the hearing will be available for review at the Division of Dockets Management and at http://www.regulations.gov approximately 45 days after the hearing. You may submit a request to obtain a hard copy or CD-ROM transcript. Send your request to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Office of Management Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville, MD 20857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FDA is evaluating its current enforcement policies for drug products labeled as homeopathic from scientific, risk, and process perspectives. The Agency is now soliciting opinions about whether and how to adjust the current enforcement policies to reflect changes in the homeopathic product marketplace over the last approximately 25 years.

    I. Background A. Homeopathic Products and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

    The definition of a “drug” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) includes: (1) Articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia (USP), official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States (HPUS); (2) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (3) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals. See section 201(g)(1)(A) to (C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(A) to(C)). Accordingly, an article that meets this definition of a “drug” is subject to regulation under the FD&C Act, regardless of whether it is labeled as homeopathic. An article that also meets the definition of a “biological product” (as defined in section 351(i) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C 262(i))) is subject to regulation under both the FD&C Act and the PHS Act.

    The FD&C Act recognizes the HPUS, along with the USP, as an official compendium. See section 201(j) of the FD&C Act. The HPUS is produced by a non-governmental organization known as the Homeopathic Pharmacopœia Convention of the United States (HPCUS) and has been in continuous publication since 1897 (Ref. 1). The HPCUS determines which ingredients, including permissible potency levels, are officially monographed homeopathic ingredients. To date, there are over 1200 officially monographed ingredients in the HPUS. Since 2004, the HPCUS has added over 500 new ingredient monographs. The standards set forth in the HPUS and the USP affect the naming, quality, and labeling of drug products. See e.g., sections 501(b) and 502(g) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(b) and 352(g)).

    Nothing in the FD&C Act exempts drugs labeled as homeopathic from any of the requirements related to approval, adulteration, and misbranding, including labeling requirements. If a drug labeled as homeopathic is a new drug under the FD&C Act, it is subject to the same premarket approval requirements and the same standards for safety and efficacy as all new drugs. A new drug is defined, in part, as any drug that is not generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for use under the condition prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof. See section 201(p) of the FD&C Act).

    B. Homeopathic Drugs and the OTC Drug Review

    In 1972, FDA initiated rulemaking procedures (the OTC Drug Review) to determine which OTC drugs are generally recognized among qualified experts as safe and effective and not misbranded under prescribed, recommended, or suggested conditions of use. See “Procedures for Classification of Over-the-Counter Drugs” (37 FR 9464, May 11, 1972). FDA deferred review of drugs labeled as homeopathic due to the uniqueness of homeopathic medicine and stated that FDA would review them as a separate category at a later time (37 FR 9464 at 9466). To date, FDA has not reviewed this class of products for safety and efficacy. Accordingly, there are currently no FDA monographs for drug products labeled as homeopathic.

    C. FDA's Compliance Policy Guide

    Since 1988, prescription and nonprescription drug products labeled as homeopathic have been manufactured and distributed without FDA approval under the enforcement policies set forth in FDA's Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) 400.400 entitled “Conditions Under Which Homeopathic Drugs May be Marketed” (see 53 FR 21728, June 9, 1988). The CPG defines a homeopathic drug as any drug labeled as being homeopathic which is listed in the HPUS, an addendum to it, or its supplements. The CPG includes conditions specific to ingredients, labeling, prescription status, and current good manufacturing practice. The CPG can be found at http://www.fda.gov/iceci/compliancemanuals/compliancepolicyguidancemanual/ucm074360.htm.

    D. Growth in the Sale of Drugs Labeled as “Homeopathic”

    The homeopathic drug industry has continued on an upward growth trajectory since FDA issued its CPG in 1988, especially with respect to OTC drug products labeled as homeopathic. The CPG noted that, at the time of original publication in 1988, the homeopathic drug market was a multimillion dollar industry in the United States. In 2007, the National Health Interview Survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, estimated that adults spent about $2.9 billion on the purchase of homeopathic medicine (Ref. 2). Many drugs labeled as homeopathic are sold OTC in major retail stores and are often marketed as natural, safe, and effective alternatives to other prescription and nonprescription products.

    E. Safety of Drug Products Labeled as Homeopathic

    Drugs products labeled as homeopathic can contain a wide range of substances, including ingredients derived from plants, healthy or diseased animal or human sources, minerals, and chemicals (either as active or inactive ingredients). As with ingredients in other drug and biological products, homeopathic ingredients, even if highly diluted, can cause side effects, drug interactions, and allergic or other adverse reactions. Negative health effects from drug products labeled as homeopathic have been reported through the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System and the National Poison Data System (NPDS), which is maintained by the American Association of Poison Control Centers and tracks human poison exposure cases. Data in the NPDS pertaining to homeopathic drug products is tracked under the category “Homeopathic Agents.” The 2012 American Association of Poison Control Center Annual Report indicated that there were 10,311 reported poison exposure cases related to “Homeopathic Agents,” with 8,788 of those reported cases attributed to children 5 years of age and younger (Ref. 3). Of the 10,311 reported cases, 697 required treatment in a health care facility (Id.).

    II. Scope of the Public Hearing

    FDA is seeking broad public input on the current enforcement policies related to drug products labeled as homeopathic in an effort to better promote and protect the public health. FDA has developed a list of questions to facilitate a more productive discussion at the public hearing. This list is not intended to be exclusive, and FDA encourages comments on other matters related to the development and regulation of drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic. Issues that are of specific interest to the Agency include the following:

    • What are consumer and health care provider attitudes towards human drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic?

    • What data sources can be identified or shared with FDA so that the Agency can better assess the risks and benefits of drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic?

    • Are the current enforcement policies under the CPG appropriate to protect and promote public health in light of the tremendous growth in the homeopathic drug market? Are there alternatives to the current enforcement policies of the CPG that would inform FDA's regulatory oversight of drugs labeled as homeopathic? If so, please explain.

    • Are there areas of the current CPG that could benefit from additional clarity? If so, please explain.

    • Is there information regarding the regulation of homeopathic products in other countries that could inform FDA's thinking in this area?

    • A large majority of human drug products labeled as homeopathic are marketed as OTC drugs. These products are available for a wide variety of indications, and many of these indications have never been considered for OTC use under a formal regulatory process. What would be an appropriate regulatory process for evaluating such indications for OTC use?

    • Given the wide range of indications on drug products labeled as homeopathic and available OTC, what processes do companies currently use to evaluate whether such products, including their indications for use, are appropriate for marketing as an OTC drug?

    • Do consumers and health care providers have adequate information to make informed decisions about drug products labeled as homeopathic? If not, what information, including, for example, information in labeling, would allow consumers and health care providers to be better informed about products labeled as homeopathic?

    III. Attendance and/or Participation in the Public Hearing

    The public hearing is free and seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. If you wish to make an oral presentation during the hearing, you must register by submitting either an electronic or a written request by 5 p.m. on April 13, 2015, to Lesley DeRenzo or Cynthia Ng (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Submit electronic requests to [email protected] You must provide your name, title, business affiliation (if applicable), address, telephone and fax numbers, email address, and type of organization you represent (e.g., industry, consumer organization, etc.). You also should submit a brief summary of the presentation, including the discussion topic(s) that will be addressed and the approximate time requested for your presentation. FDA encourages individuals and organizations with common interests to coordinate and give a joint, consolidated presentation. Registrants will receive confirmation once they have been accepted to attend the meeting. FDA may limit both the number of participants from individual organizations and the total number of attendees based on space limitations. Registered presenters should check in before the hearing.

    Participants should submit a copy of each presentation to Lesley DeRenzo or Cynthia Ng (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than 5 p.m. on April 13, 2015. We will file the hearing schedule, indicating the order and time allotted for each presenter, with the Division of Dockets Management (see COMMENTS AND TRANSCRIPTS). FDA will post an agenda of the public hearing and other background material at least 3 days before the public hearing, along with additional information, at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm132703.htm (select this hearing from the events list).

    We will mail, email, or telephone the schedule to each participant before the hearing. In anticipation of the hearing presentations moving ahead of schedule, participants are encouraged to arrive early to ensure their designated order of presentation. Participants who are not present when called risk forfeiting their scheduled time.

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, contact Lesley DeRenzo or Cynthia Ng (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of the hearing.

    IV. Notice of Hearing Under 21 CFR Part 15

    The Commissioner of Food and Drugs is announcing that the public hearing will be held in accordance with part 15 (21 CFR part 15). A presiding officer, who will be accompanied by FDA senior management from the Office of the Commissioner and the relevant centers, will conduct the hearing.

    Under § 15.30(f), the hearing is informal and the rules of evidence do not apply. Only the presiding officer and panel members may question any person during or at the conclusion of each presentation (§ 15.30(e)). Public hearings under part 15 are subject to FDA's policy and procedures for electronic media coverage of FDA's public administrative proceedings (21 CFR part 10, subpart C) (§ 10.203(a)). Under § 10.205, representatives of the electronic media may be permitted, subject to certain limitations, to videotape, film, or otherwise record FDA's public administrative proceedings, including presentations by participants. The hearing will be transcribed as stipulated in § 15.30(b). To the extent that the conditions for the hearing as described in this document conflict with any provisions set out in part 15, this notice acts as a waiver of those provisions as specified in § 15.30(h).

    V. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. (FDA has verified all the Web site addresses in this reference section, but we are not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal Register.)

    1. The Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States (HPUS), “What is the HPUS?”, available at http://www.hpus.com/what-is-the-hpus.php (last visited Dec. 23, 2014). 2. Nahin, R. L., P. M. Barnes, B. J. Stussman, and B. Bloom, “Costs of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) and Frequency of Visits to CAM Practitioners: United States, 2007.” National Health Statistics Reports; no 18. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2009. 3. James B. Mowry, et al., “2012 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System (NPDS): 30th Annual Report,” 51 Clinical Toxicology, 949, 1188 (2013). Dated: March 20, 2015. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07018 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0083; FRL-9924-74-Region 9] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer County Air Pollution Control District and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the surface coating of plastic parts and products, metalworking fluids and direct-contact lubricants. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

    DATE:

    Any comments on this proposal must arrive by April 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments, identified by docket number: EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0083 by one of the following methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3024, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposal addresses the following local rules: PCAPCD Rule 249 and VCAPCD Rule 74.31. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: February 27, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06857 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0634; FRL-9925-18-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Plan Approval and Operating Permit Fees 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 Comonwealth of Pennsylvania pertaining to minor editorial revisions to Pennsylvania's existing plan approval and operating permit fee rules. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State'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 April 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0634, 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-2014-0634, Dave Campbell, Associate Director, Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

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

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0634. 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 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gerallyn Duke, (215) 814-2084, 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.

    Dated: March 10, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06964 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0904; FRL-9925-14-Region 4] Approval of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas; Tennessee; Redesignation of the Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga, 1997 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area to Attainment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On November 13, 2014, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), submitted a request to redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga, TN-GA-AL fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the “Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area” or “Area”) to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision containing a maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. The Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is comprised of Hamilton County in Tennessee. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the redesignation request and the related SIP revision, including TDEC's plan for maintaining attainment of the PM2.5 standard, for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. EPA is also proposing to approve into the Tennessee SIP the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and PM2.5 for the year 2025 for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. In separate actions, EPA approved the redesignation requests and associated maintenance plans for the Alabama and Georgia portions of this Area.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0904, by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.

    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0904, Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0904. EPA 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 through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    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 at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joydeb Majumder of the Air Regulatory Management Section, in the Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Joydeb Majumder may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9121, or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take? II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions? III. What are the criteria for redesignation? IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions? V. What is EPA's analysis of the request? VI. What is the effect of January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit decision regarding PM2.5 implementation under subpart 4? VII. What is EPA's analysis of Tennessee's proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL area? VIII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2025 for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL area? IX. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan SIP Revisions Including Approval of the NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2025 for the Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area X. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions? XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?

    In this action, EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is continuing to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS 1 and to take additional actions related to Tennessee's request to redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, which is summarized as follows and described in greater detail throughout this notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA proposes: (1) To redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS; and (2) to approve, under section 175A of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), Tennessee's 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan, including the associated MVEBs, for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area into the Tennessee SIP.

    1 On September 8, 2011, at 76 FR 55774, EPA determined that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by its applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010, and that the Area was continuing to attain the PM2.5 standard with monitoring data that was currently available.

    First, EPA proposes to determine that the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve a request to change the legal designation of Hamilton County in Tennessee, located within the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Second, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan is designed to help keep the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area in attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025. The maintenance plan that EPA is proposing to approve today includes on-road MVEBs for direct PM2.5 and NOX for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area for transportation conformity purposes. EPA is proposing to approve the 2025 MVEBs into the Tennessee SIP that are included as part of Tennessee's maintenance plan for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Further, EPA proposes to make the determination that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is continuing to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that all other redesignation criteria have been met for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. The bases for EPA's determination for the Area are discussed in greater detail below. EPA is also providing the public an update of the status of EPA's adequacy process for the 2025 MVEBs for PM2.5 and NOX for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. Please see Section VIII of this proposed rulemaking for further explanation of this process and for more details.

    Today's notice of proposed rulemaking is in response to Tennessee's November 13, 2014, SIP revision, which requests redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and addresses the specific issues summarized above and the necessary elements for redesignation described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. In separate actions, EPA approved the redesignation requests and associated maintenance plans for the Alabama and Georgia portions of the Area. See 79 FR 76235 (December 22, 2014) and 79 FR 75748 (December 19, 2014), respectively.

    II. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions?

    Fine particle pollution can be emitted directly or formed secondarily in the atmosphere. The main precursors of secondary PM2.5 are sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, ammonia, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). See 72 FR 20586, 20589 (April 25, 2007). Sulfates are a type of secondary particle formed from SO2 emissions of power plants and industrial facilities. Nitrates, another common type of secondary particle, are formed from NOX emissions of power plants, automobiles, and other combustion sources.

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards for PM2.5. EPA promulgated an annual standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), based on a 3-year average of annualmean PM2.5 concentrations. In the same rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m3, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On October 17, 2006, EPA retained the annual average NAAQS at 15 μg/m3 but revised the 24-hour NAAQS to 35 μg/m3, based again on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.2 See 71 FR 61144. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the primary and secondary 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS are attained when the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 μg/m3 at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area over a 3-year period.

    2 In response to legal challenges of the annual standard promulgated in 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir.) remanded that NAAQS to EPA for further consideration. See American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). However, given that the 1997 and 2006 Annual NAAQS are essentially identical, attainment of the 1997 Annual NAAQS would also indicate attainment of the remanded 2006 Annual NAAQS.

    On January 5, 2005, and supplemented on April 14, 2005, EPA designated Hamilton County in Tennessee, in association with counties in Alabama and Georgia in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, as nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 944 and 70 FR 19844, respectively. On November 13, 2009, EPA promulgated designations for the 24-hour standard established in 2006, designating counties in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688. That action also clarified that Hamilton County in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area was classified unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA did not promulgate designations for the 2006 annual PM2.5 NAAQS because that NAAQS was essentially identical to the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, Hamilton County in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is designated nonattainment for the Annual PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997, and today's action only addresses this designation.

    All 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS areas were designated under subpart 1 of title I, part D, of the CAA. Subpart 1 contains the general requirements for nonattainment areas for any pollutant governed by a NAAQS and is less prescriptive than the other subparts of title I, part D. On April 25, 2007, EPA promulgated its PM2.5 Implementation Rule, codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z, in which the Agency provided guidance for state and tribal plans to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 72 FR 20664. This rule, at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), specifies some of the regulatory results of attaining the NAAQS, as discussed below. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule and the final rule entitled “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)” final rule (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (collectively, “1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule”) to EPA on January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA, rather than the particulate matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of part D of title I. The effect of the court's ruling on this proposed redesignation action is discussed in detail in Section VI of this document.

    The 3-year ambient air quality data for 2007-2009 indicated no violations of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. As a result, on November 13, 2014, Tennessee requested redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The redesignation request includes three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality data for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for 2007-2009, indicating that the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS had been achieved for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. Under the CAA, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment if sufficient, complete, quality-assured data is available for the Administrator to determine that the area has attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). The Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area's design value, based on data from 2007 through 2009, is below 15.0 μg/m3, which demonstrates attainment of the standard. While Annual PM2.5 concentrations are dependent on a variety of conditions, the overall improvement in annual PM2.5 concentrations in the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area can be attributed to the reduction of pollutant emissions, as discussed in more detail in Section V of this proposed rulemaking.

    The D.C. Circuit and the United States Supreme Court have issued a number of decisions and orders regarding the status of EPA's regional trading programs for transported air pollution, CAIR and CSAPR, that impact this proposed redesignation action. The effect of those court actions on this rulemaking is discussed in detail in Section V of this document.

    III. What are the criteria for redesignation?

    The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation provided the following criteria are met: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA.

    EPA has provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070)) and has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:

    1. “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the “Calcagni Memorandum”);

    2. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; and

    3. “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994.

    IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions?

    On November 13, 2014, TDEC requested the redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The Chattanooga TN-GA Area has attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and EPA's preliminary evaluation indicates that the Tennessee portion of this Area has met the requirements for redesignation set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E), including the maintenance plan requirements under section 175A of the CAA. EPA is also announcing the status of its adequacy determination for both the NOX and direct PM2.5 MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. Additionally, EPA is also proposing to approve the MVEBs for both NOX and direct PM2.5 that were included in Tennessee's maintenance plan.

    V. What is EPA's analysis of the request?

    As stated above, in accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes in today's action to: (1) Redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS; and (2) approve into the Tennessee SIP the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan, including the associated MVEBs, for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. Further, EPA proposes to make the determination that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that all other redesignation criteria have been met for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. The five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the Area in the following paragraphs of this section.

    Criteria (1)—The Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area Has Attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). EPA is proposing to determine that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS since the May 31, 2011, attainment determination. See 76 FR 31239. For PM2.5, an area may be considered to be attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS if it meets the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.13 and appendix N of part 50, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. To attain these NAAQS, the 3-year average of the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, must be less than or equal to 15.0 µg/m3 at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area over a 3-year period. The relevant data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. The monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.

    On May 31, 2011, EPA determined that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area was attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 31239. For that action, EPA reviewed PM2.5 monitoring data from monitoring stations in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for 2007-2009. These data had been quality-assured by the respective state agencies and are recorded in AQS. In addition, on September 8, 2011, at 76 FR 55774, EPA finalized a determination that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of April 5, 2010. As summarized in Table 1, below, the 3-year averages of annual arithmetic mean concentrations (i.e., design values) for the years 2009 through 2013 for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area are below the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Table 1—Design Value Concentrations for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS [μg/m3] Location County Site ID 3-Year design values 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013 Rossville—Maple St., Georgia Walker County, Georgia 132950002 * 12.5 10.6 10.1 10.0 10.5 Siskin Drive/UTC, Tennessee Hamilton County, Tennessee 470654002 12.9 11.6 11.1 10.9 10.0 Maxwell Road/East Ridge, Tennessee Hamilton County, Tennessee 470650031 12.7 11.6 11.2 11.1 10.1 Soddy-Daisy High School, Tennessee Hamilton County, Tennessee 470651011 11.1 10.7 11.0 11.2 9.8 * Values subject to data substitution (76 FR 15895 (March 22, 2011)).

    As discussed above, the design value for an area is the highest 3-year average of annual mean concentrations recorded at any monitor in the area. Therefore, the 3-year design value for the period on which Tennessee based its redesignation request (2007-2009) for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is 12.9 μg/m3, which is below the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Additional details can be found in EPA's final clean data determination for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. See 76 FR 31239 (May 31, 2011). EPA has reviewed more recent data which indicate that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS beyond the submitted 3-year attainment period of 2007-2009. If the Area does not continue to attain before EPA finalizes the redesignation, EPA will not go forward with the redesignation. As discussed in more detail below, TDEC has committed to continue monitoring in this Area in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

    Criteria (5) —Tennessee Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA; and Criteria (2)—Tennessee Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) for the Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes to find that Tennessee has met all applicable SIP requirements for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) for purposes of redesignation. Additionally, EPA proposes to find that the Tennessee SIP satisfies the criterion that it meets applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA (requirements specific to 1997 Annual PM2.5 nonattainment areas) in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, EPA proposes to determine that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are applicable to the Area and, if applicable, that they are fully approved under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to requirements that were applicable prior to submittal of the complete redesignation request.

    a. The Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D of the CAA

    General SIP requirements. Section 110(a)(2) of title I of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques; provisions for the establishment and operation of appropriate devices necessary to collect data on ambient air quality; and programs to enforce the limitations. General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: Submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a source permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and provisions for the implementation of part D requirements (New Source Review (NSR) permit programs); provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development.

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

    In addition, EPA believes other section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section 184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio, redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 50399, October 19, 2001).

    On August 2, 2012, EPA approved all infrastructure SIP elements required under section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS with the exception of the visibility element under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (also known as “prong 4”). See 77 FR 45958. EPA approved prong 4 for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS on May 7, 2014. See 79 FR 26143. These requirements are, however, statewide requirements that are not linked to the PM2.5 nonattainment status of the Area. As stated above, EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to an area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Therefore, EPA believes it has approved all SIP elements under section 110 that must be approved as a prerequisite for the redesignation to attainment of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area.

    Title I, Part D, subpart 1 applicable SIP requirements. EPA proposes to determine that the Tennessee SIP meets the applicable SIP requirements for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area for purposes of redesignation under part D of the CAA. Subpart 1 of part D, found in sections 172-176 of the CAA, sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. All areas that were designated nonattainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS were designated under subpart 1 of the CAA. For purposes of evaluating this redesignation request, the applicable part D, subpart 1 SIP requirements for all nonattainment areas are contained in sections 172(c)(1)-(9) and in section 176. A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 172 can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of title I. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). Section VI of this proposed rulemaking notice discusses the relationship between this proposed redesignation action and subpart 4 of Part D.

    Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements. Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA interprets this requirement to impose a duty on all nonattainment areas to consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available for implementation in each area as components of the area's attainment demonstration. Under section 172, states with nonattainment areas must submit plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a variety of other requirements.

    EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the NAAQS, those requirements are not “applicable” for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be approved into the SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. In the 1992 General Preamble for Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth its interpretation of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining a standard. See 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). EPA noted that the requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures designed to provide for attainment do not apply in evaluating redesignation requests because those nonattainment planning requirements “have no meaning” for an area that has already attained the standard. Id. This interpretation was also set forth in the Calcagni Memorandum. EPA's understanding of section 172 also forms the basis of its Clean Data Policy, which was articulated with regard to PM2.5 in 40 CFR 51.1004(c), and suspends a state's obligation to submit most of the attainment planning requirements that would otherwise apply, including an attainment demonstration and planning SIPs to provide for reasonable further progress (RFP), RACM, and contingency measures under section 172(c)(9).3 Courts have upheld EPA's interpretation of section 172(c)(1)'s “reasonably available” control measures and control technology as meaning only those controls that advance attainment, which precludes the need to require additional measures where an area is already attaining. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 744 (5th Cir. 2002).

    3 This regulation was promulgated as part of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS implementation rule that was subsequently challenged and remanded in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), as discussed in Section VI of this document. However, the Clean Data Policy portion of the implementation rule was not at issue in that case.

    Therefore, because attainment has been reached in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment, and section 172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment demonstration and RACM are no longer considered to be applicable for purposes of redesignation as long as the Area continues to attain the standard until redesignation. The section 172(c)(2) requirement that nonattainment plans contain provisions promoting reasonable further progress toward attainment is also not relevant for purposes of redesignation because EPA has determined that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has monitored attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, because the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and is no longer subject to a RFP requirement, the requirement to submit the section 172(c)(9) contingency measures is not applicable for purposes of redesignation. Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the NAAQS. Because attainment has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for attainment.

    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. On February 8, 2012, EPA approved Tennessee's 2002 base-year emissions inventory for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area as part of the SIP revision submitted by TDEC to provide for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area. See 77 FR 6467.

    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” Tennessee has demonstrated that the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area will be able to maintain the NAAQS without part D NSR in effect, and therefore Tennessee need not have fully approved part D NSR programs prior to approval of the redesignation request. Tennessee's PSD program will become effective in the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area upon redesignation to attainment.

    Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA believes the Tennessee SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes of redesignation.

    176 Conformity Requirements. Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that federally-supported or funded projects conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved under title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other federally-supported or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, enforcement, and enforceability that EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA.

    EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements 4 as not applying for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity rules are still required after redesignation and federal conformity rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (upholding this interpretation) (6th Cir. 2001); See 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995).

    4 CAA Section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain federal criteria and procedures for determining transportation conformity. Transportation conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle emission budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.

    Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

    b. The Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of the CAA

    EPA has fully approved the applicable Tennessee SIP for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (see Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3; Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426) plus any additional measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein. Following passage of the CAA of 1970, Tennessee has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved at various times, provisions addressing the various SIP elements applicable for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area (e.g., 77 FR 45958, August 2, 2012).

    As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.

    Criteria (3)—The Air Quality Improvement in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area Is Due to Permanent And Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA believes that Tennessee has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and Federal measures.

    Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, refers to airborne particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter. Although treated as a single pollutant, fine particles come from many different sources and are composed of many different compounds. In the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, one of the largest components of PM2.5 is sulfate, which is formed through various chemical reactions from the precursor SO2. The other major component of PM2.5 is organic carbon, which originates predominantly from biogenic emission sources. Nitrate, which is formed from the precursor NOX, is also a component of PM2.5. Crustal materials from windblown dust and elemental carbon from combustion sources are less significant contributors to total PM2.5. VOCs, also precursors for PM, are emitted from a variety of sources, including motor vehicles, chemical plants, refineries, factories, consumer and commercial products, and other industrial sources. VOCs also are emitted by natural sources such as vegetation.

    Federal measures enacted in recent years have resulted in permanent emission reductions in particulate matter and its precursors. Most of these emission reductions are enforceable through regulations. The Federal measures that have been implemented include:

    Tier 2 vehicle standards and low-sulfur gasoline. In addition to requiring NOX controls, the Tier 2 rule reduced the allowable sulfur content of gasoline to 30 parts per million (ppm) starting in January of 2006. Most gasoline sold prior to this had a sulfur content of approximately 300 ppm.

    Heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards & Ultra Low-Sulfur Diesel Rule. On October 6, 2000, the U.S. EPA promulgated a rule to reduce NOX and VOC emissions from heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicles that began to take effect in 2004. See 65 FR 59896. A second phase of standards and testing procedures began in 2007 to reduce particulate matter from heavy-duty highway engines, and reduce highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 ppm since the sulfur in fuel damages high efficiency catalytic exhaust emission control devices. The total program should achieve a 90 percent reduction in PM emissions and a 95 percent reduction in NOX emission for new engines using low-sulfur diesel, compared to existing engines using higher-content sulfur diesel.

    Non-road, large spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards. The non-road spark-ignition and recreational engine standards, effective in July 2003, regulate NOX, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide from groups of previously unregulated non-road engines. These engine standards apply to large spark-ignition engines (e.g., forklifts and airport ground service equipment), recreational vehicles (e.g., off-highway motorcycles and all-terrain-vehicles), and recreational marine diesel engines sold in the United States and imported after the effective date of these standards.

    When all of the non-road spark-ignition and recreational engine standards are fully implemented, an overall 72 percent reduction in hydrocarbons, 80 percent reduction in NOX, and 56 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions are expected by 2020. These controls will help reduce ambient concentrations of ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine particulate matter.

    Large non-road diesel engine standards. Promulgated in 2004, this rule was phased in between 2008 and 2014. This rule will reduce sulfur content in non-road diesel fuel and, when fully implemented, will reduce NOX and direct PM2.5 emissions by over 90 percent from these engines.

    Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine standard. Initially promulgated in 2010, this rule regulates emissions of air toxics from existing diesel powered stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines that meet specific site rating, age, and size criteria. With all of the reciprocating internal combustion engine standards fully implemented in 2013, EPA estimates that PM2.5 emissions from these engines have been reduced by approximately 2,800 tons per year (tpy).

    Category 3 Marine Diesel Engine standard. Promulgated in 2010, this rule establishes more stringent exhaust emission standards for new large marine diesel engines with per cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters (commonly referred to as Category 3 compression-ignition marine engines) as part of a coordinated strategy to address emissions from all ships that affect U.S. air quality. Near-term standards for newly built engines applied beginning in 2011, and long-term standards requiring an 80 percent reduction in NOX emissions will begin in 2016.

    NO X SIP Call. On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a NOX SIP Call requiring the District of Columbia and 22 states to reduce emissions of NOX. Affected states were required to comply with Phase I of the SIP Call beginning in 2004 and Phase II beginning in 2007. Emission reductions resulting from regulations developed in response to the NOX SIP Call are permanent and enforceable.

    CAIR and CSAPR. The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) was promulgated in 2005 and required 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia to significantly reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX from electric generating units (EGUs) in order to limit the interstate transport of these pollutants and the ozone and fine particulate matter they form in the atmosphere. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). In 2008, the D.C. Circuit initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011, acting on the Court's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR, to address interstate transport of emissions and resulting secondary air pollutants and to replace CAIR (76 FR 48208).5 CSAPR requires substantial reductions of SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs in 28 states in the Eastern United States. Implementation of the rule was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs would have superseded the CAIR cap-and-trade programs. Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 2011), Order at 2.

    5 CAIR addressed the 1997 PM2.5 Annual standard and the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. CSAPR addresses contributions from upwind states to downwind nonattainment and maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard as well as the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS addressed by CAIR.

    On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to the Agency and once again ordering continued implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit subsequently denied EPA's petition for rehearing en banc. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302, 2013 WL 656247 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2013), at *1. EPA and other parties then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted the petitions on June 24, 2013. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 133 S. Ct. 2857 (2013).

    On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court vacated and reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision regarding CSAPR and remanded that decision to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with its ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). EPA filed a motion to lift the stay in light of the Supreme Court decision, and on October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case No. 11-1302, Document No. 1518738. EPA subsequently issued an interim final rule amending the Code of Federal Regulations to correctly reflect the compliance deadlines for CSAPR as revised by the effect of the Court's order granting EPA's motion to lift the stay of CSAPR and delay its deadlines by three years. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014). These amendments make clear that, consistent with the Court's order, compliance with CSAPR's Phase 1 emissions budgets is now required in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013) and compliance with the rule's Phase 2 emissions budgets and assurance provisions is now required in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond).

    EPA approved a modification to Tennessee's SIP on November 25, 2009, that addressed the requirements of CAIR for the purpose of reducing SO2 and NOX emissions (see 74 FR 61535), and Tennessee's SIP redesignation request lists CAIR/CSAPR as a control measure. CAIR was in place and getting emission reductions when the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area began monitoring attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The quality-assured, certified monitoring data used to demonstrate the area's attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the April 5, 2010, attainment deadline was also impacted by CAIR. However, EPA conducted an air quality modeling analysis as part of the CSAPR rulemaking which demonstrates that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area would be able to maintain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS even in the absence of either CAIR or CSAPR. See “Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document,” App. B-40 and B-59.6 This modeling is available in the docket for this proposed redesignation action. In addition, as noted above, the D.C. Circuit has lifted the stay of CSAPR and EPA has made ministerial amendments to CSAPR consistent with the Court's order. Therefore, to the extent that these transport rules impact attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, any emission reductions associated with CAIR that helped the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area achieve attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS are permanent and enforceable for purposes of redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) of the CAA because CSAPR requires similar or greater emission reductions from relevant upwind areas starting in 2015 and beyond.

    6 The air quality modeling analysis for the CSAPR rulemaking did not identify any of the four monitors in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area as receptors.

    Criteria (4)—The Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA

    For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, TDEC submitted a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for at least 10 years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment. EPA believes that this maintenance plan meets the requirements for approval under section 175A of the CAA.

    a. What is required in a maintenance plan?

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, TDEC must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, as EPA deems necessary, to assure prompt correction of any future 1997 Annual PM2.5 violations. The Calcagni Memorandum provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five requirements: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. As is discussed below, EPA proposes to find that TDEC's maintenance plan includes all the necessary components and is thus proposing to approve it as a revision to the Tennessee SIP.

    b. CAA 175 Maintenance Plan Requirements 1. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    The Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on monitoring data for the 3-year period from 2007-2009. TDEC has selected 2007 as the attainment emission inventory year. The attainment inventory identifies a level of emissions in the Area that is sufficient to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. TDEC began development of the attainment inventory by first generating a baseline emissions inventory for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. As noted above, the year 2007 was chosen as the base year for developing a comprehensive emissions inventory for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors SO2 and NOX. Emissions projections to support maintenance through 2025 have been prepared for the years 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025. The projected inventory included with the maintenance plan estimates emissions forward to 2025, which satisfies the 10-year interval required in section 175(A) of the CAA.

    The emissions inventories are composed of four major types of sources: point, area, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile. The projected annual emissions from point and area sources were determined by applying Economic Growth Analysis System version 5.0 for Hamilton County to respective attainment year emissions. The projected annual emissions from onroad mobile sources within Hamilton County for 2025 were determined by using the MOVES2010b model. Projected annual emissions from nonroad mobile sources within Hamilton County were determined by using the NONROAD2008a model. The 2007 SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 emissions for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, as well as the emissions for other years, were developed consistent with EPA guidance and are summarized in Tables 2 through 6 of the following subsection discussing the maintenance demonstration.

    2. Maintenance Demonstration

    The November 13, 2014, final submittal includes a maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. This demonstration:

    (i) Shows compliance with and maintenance of the Annual PM2.5 standard by providing information to support the demonstration that current and future emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 will remain below 2007 emission levels.

    (ii) Uses 2007 as the attainment year and includes future emission inventory projections for 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022, and 2025.

    (iii) Identifies an “out year” at least 10 years after EPA review and potential approval of the maintenance plan. Per 40 CFR part 93, NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs were established for the last year (2025) of the maintenance plan.

    (iv) Provides, as shown in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 below, the actual and projected emissions inventories, in tpy, for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area.

    Table 2—Actual (2007) and Projected Point Source Emissions for the Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area [tons] Pollutant 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 SO2 919.2 797.5 808.1 798.0 819.4 842.1 865.6 NOX 2,437.2 2,484.1 2,575.6 2,650.6 2,811.6 2,982.2 3,154.6 PM2.5 160.2 156.3 158.2 169.2 180.7 193.1 205.8 Table 3—Actual (2007) and Projected Non-Point Source Emissions for the Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area [tons] Pollutant 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 SO2 332.6 346.7 363.2 382.9 401.1 420.6 441.1 NOX 3,415.1 3,638.0 3,835.2 4,089.8 4,348.5 4,609.0 4,880.6 PM2.5 875.4 916.6 955.8 1,001.2 1,042.6 1,083.6 1,121.9 Table 4—Actual (2007) and Projected On-Road Mobile Sources Emissions for the Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area [tons] Pollutant 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 SO2 87.6 77.1 66.5 56.0 45.5 34.9 24.4 NOX 11,465.2 9,972.4 8,479.7 6,986.9 5,494.2 4,001.5 2,508.7 PM2.5 395.1 342.0 288.9 235.8 182.7 129.6 79.5 Table 5—Actual (2007) and Projected Non-Road Mobile Source Emissions for the Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area [tons] Pollutant 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 SO2 99.3 25.9 15.2 14.2 14.7 15.3 15.9 NOX 1,792.1 1,562.6 1,264.3 1,003.4 833.6 730.8 675.2 PM2.5 153.6 141.6 123.7 101.0 82.4 70.4 63.5 Table 6—Actual (2007) and Projected Emissions for All Sectors for the Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area [tons] Pollutant 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 SO2 1,438.8 1,247.2 1,253.2 1,251.1 1,280.7 1,312.9 1,346.9 NOX 19,109.5 17,657.2 16,154.7 14,730.8 13,487.9 12,323.4 11,219.1 PM2.5 1,584.3 1,556.5 1,526.6 1,507.3 1,488.4 1,476.7 1,467.8

    Table 2 shows a slight increase of NOX, and PM2.5 from point sources, and Table 3 indicates a slight increase of NOX, SO2, and PM2.5 from nonpoint emission sources. Table 6 reflects the overall emissions from all source categories in the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga, TN-GA-AL. Overall emissions from all source categories combined for all three pollutants, NOX, SO2, and PM2.5, are projected to decrease from 2007 to 2025. In situations where local emissions are the primary contributor to nonattainment, such as the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, if the future projected emissions in the nonattainment area remain at or below the baseline emissions in the nonattainment area, then the ambient air quality standard should not be exceeded in the future. As explained below, EPA proposes to find that the overall emission projections illustrate that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is expected to continue to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025.7 Emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 are projected to decline by 6.4 percent, 41.3 percent and 7.4 percent, respectively, from 2007 to 2025.

    7 In separate actions, EPA approved the redesignation requests and associated maintenance plans for the Alabama and Georgia portions of the Area. See 79 FR 76235 (December 22, 2014) and 79 FR 75748 (December 19, 2014), respectively. Therefore, EPA does not believe that projected emissions from those portions of the Area present a maintenance problem for air quality in the Area as a whole.

    A maintenance plan requires the state to show that projected future year overall emissions will not exceed the level of emissions which led the Area to attain the NAAQS. For the reasons discussed above, EPA preliminarily agrees that Tennessee's projected emissions demonstrate that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area will continue to attain for the duration of the maintenance plan.

    3. Monitoring Network

    There are currently three monitors measuring ambient PM2.5 in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. TDEC has committed to continue operation of the monitors in the Tennessee portion of Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area in compliance with 40 CFR part 58 and have thus addressed the requirement for monitoring. EPA approved Tennessee's 2013 monitoring plan on November 14, 2013. In addition, there is currently one monitor measuring ambient PM2.5 in the Georgia portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) has committed to continue operation of the monitor in the Georgia portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area in compliance with 40 CFR part 58 and has thus addressed the requirement for monitoring. On December 19, 2014, EPA approved GA EPD's submittal to redesignate the Georgia portion of Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. See 79 FR 75748. There is no monitor in the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area.

    4. Verification of Continued Attainment

    TDEC has the legal authority to enforce and implement the requirements of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area 1997 Annual PM2.5 maintenance plan. This includes the authority to adopt, implement, and enforce any subsequent emissions control contingency measures determined to be necessary to correct future PM2.5 attainment problems.

    TDEC will track the progress of the maintenance plan by performing future reviews of triennial emission inventories for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area as required in the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) and Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR). For these periodic inventories, TDEC will review the assumptions made for the purpose of the maintenance demonstration concerning projected growth of activity levels. If any of these assumptions appear to have changed substantially, then TDEC will re-project emissions for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area.

    5. Contingency Measures in the Maintenance Plan

    Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. A state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d). TDEC has identified the following possible means for providing further reductions in emissions of PM2.5 and/or its significant precursors as contingency measures for emission sources within Hamilton County:

    • Reasonably available control technology (RACT) for point sources of PM2.5 emissions not already covered by RACT, best available control technology, or reasonable and proper emission limitations;

    • RACM for area sources of PM2.5 emissions;

    • RACT for major point-sources of NOX emissions;

    • RACT for minor point-sources of NOX emissions;

    • RACM for area sources of NOX emissions;

    • RACT for major point-sources of SO2 emissions;

    • RACT for minor point-sources of SO2 emissions;

    • RACM for area sources of SO2 emissions; and

    • Additional PM2.5, NOX, and/or SO2 emissions reduction measures yet to be identified.

    The contingency plan included in the submittal includes a triggering mechanism to determine when contingency measures are needed and a process of developing and implementing appropriate control measures. TDEC will use actual ambient monitoring data to determine whether a trigger event has occurred and when contingency measures should be implemented.

    An exceedance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 µg/m3 at any federal reference method (FRM) monitor in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL maintenance area, based on quality-assured and certified monitoring data averaged over three consecutive calendar years, will trigger a comprehensive evaluation by TDEC to determine if contingency measures should be implemented. Furthermore, such an evaluation will also be triggered by the occurrence of any of the following conditions that may forewarn of a potential exceedance of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    • An annual mean PM2.5 concentration (average of quarterly-average concentrations) of greater than or equal to 16.5 µg/m3 for the previous calendar year at any FRM monitor in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL maintenance area, based on quality-assured and certified monitoring data;

    • An annual mean PM2.5 (average of quarterly-average concentrations) of greater than or equal to 15.5 µg/m3 for each of the previous two consecutive calendar years at any FRM monitor in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL maintenance area, based on the quality-assured and certified monitoring data;

    • Total emissions of PM2.5 in the most recent NEI for Hamilton County of greater than 2,059 tons, which is thirty percent more than the corresponding emissions for 2007, the attainment year; and

    • Total emissions of SO2 in the most recent NEI for Hamilton County of greater than 1,870 tons, which is thirty percent more than the corresponding emissions for 2007.

    Upon occurrence of a contingency measure trigger, the required comprehensive evaluation will be conducted to determine the cause(s) of the elevated ambient PM2.5 concentrations or emissions inventory increase, to determine if an exceedance of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS is likely to occur or continue, and to determine whether or not the adoption and implementation of appropriate contingency measures is required for the further reduction of emissions of PM2.5 and/or its significant precursors within Hamilton County. The evaluation will examine:

    • Severity of the trigger condition;

    • Potentially contributing emissions from sources within Hamilton County;

    • Potentially contributing emissions resulting from regional or long-range transport;

    • Potentially contributing meteorological conditions, if applicable;

    • Emission trends for all source types;

    • Future emissions reductions from any adopted or planned regulations or initiatives;

    • Current and recently identified emissions control technologies applicable to considered contingency measures;

    • Emissions reduction potential of considered contingency measures;

    • Technical and economic feasibility of considered contingency measures;

    • Possible geographic limitations of considered contingency measures; and

    • Implementation timeline of considered contingency measures.

    EPA has concluded that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components required: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Therefore, the maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by TDEC for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and is approvable.

    VI. What is the effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit decision regarding PM2.5 implementation under subpart 4? a. Background

    As discussed in Section I of this action, the D.C. Circuit remanded the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule to EPA on January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428. The court found that EPA erred in implementing the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of Title I of the CAA rather than the particulate matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of part D of Title I.

    b. Proposal on This Issue

    In this portion of the proposed redesignation, EPA addresses the effect of the Court's January 4, 2013, ruling on the proposed redesignation. As explained below, EPA is proposing to determine that the Court's January 4, 2013, decision does not prevent EPA from redesignating the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment. Even in light of the Court's decision, redesignation for this area is appropriate under the CAA and EPA's longstanding interpretations of the CAA's provisions regarding redesignation. EPA first explains its longstanding interpretation that requirements that are imposed, or that become due, after a complete redesignation request is submitted for an area that is attaining the standard, are not applicable for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. Second, EPA then shows that, even if EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements to the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area redesignation request and disregards the provisions of its 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule remanded by the Court, the State's request for redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area still qualifies for approval. EPA's discussion takes into account the effect of the Court's ruling on the maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, which EPA views as approvable when subpart 4 requirements are considered.

    c. Applicable Requirements for the Purpose of Evaluating the Redesignation Request

    With respect to the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule, the Court's January 4, 2013, ruling rejected EPA's reasons for implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS solely in accordance with the provisions of subpart 1 and remanded that matter to EPA to address implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of part D of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For the purposes of evaluating Tennessee's redesignation request for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, to the extent that implementation under subpart 4 would impose additional requirements for areas designated nonattainment, EPA believes that those requirements are not “applicable” for the purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not required to consider subpart 4 requirements with respect to the redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. Under its longstanding interpretation of the CAA, EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) to mean, as a threshold matter, that the part D provisions which are “applicable” and which must be approved in order for EPA to redesignate an area include only those which came due prior to a state's submittal of a complete redesignation request. See “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memorandum). See also “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for the plan and Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993 (Shapiro memorandum); Final Redesignation of Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 12465-66, March 7, 1995); Final Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 FR 25418, 25424-27, May 12, 2003); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA's redesignation rulemaking applying this interpretation and expressly rejecting Sierra Club's view that the meaning of “applicable” under the statute is “whatever should have been in the plan at the time of attainment rather than whatever actually was in already implemented or due at the time of attainment”).8 In this case, at the time that Tennessee submitted its redesignation request on November 13, 2014, requirements under subpart 4 were not due.

    8 Applicable requirements of the CAA that come due subsequent to the area's submittal of a complete redesignation request remain applicable until a redesignation is approved, but are not required as a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of the CAA.

    EPA's view that, for purposes of evaluating the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area redesignation, the subpart 4 requirements were not due at the time the State submitted the redesignation request is in keeping with the EPA's interpretation of subpart 2 requirements for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated subsequent to the D.C. Circuit's decision in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In South Coast, the Court found that EPA was not permitted to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely under subpart 1 and held that EPA was required under the statute to implement the standard under the ozone-specific requirements of subpart 2 as well. Subsequent to the South Coast decision, in evaluating and acting upon redesignation requests for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard that were submitted to EPA for areas under subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding interpretation of the CAA that “applicable requirements,” for purposes of evaluating a redesignation, are those that had been due at the time the redesignation request was submitted. See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of Manitowoc County and Door County Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, EPA therefore did not consider subpart 2 requirements to be “applicable” for the purposes of evaluating whether the area should be redesignated under section 107(d)(3)(E).

    EPA's interpretation derives from the provisions of CAA Section 107(d)(3)(E). Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an area to be redesignated, a state must meet “all requirements `applicable' to the area under section 110 and part D.” Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the EPA must have fully approved the “applicable” SIP for the area seeking redesignation. These two sections read together support EPA's interpretation of “applicable” as only those requirements that came due prior to submission of a complete redesignation request. First, holding states to an ongoing obligation to adopt new CAA requirements that arose after the state submitted its redesignation request, in order to be redesignated, would make it problematic or impossible for EPA to act on redesignation requests in accordance with the 18-month deadline Congress set for EPA action in section 107(d)(3)(D). If “applicable requirements” were interpreted to be a continuing flow of requirements with no reasonable limitation, states, after submitting a redesignation request, would be forced continuously to make additional SIP submissions that in turn would require EPA to undertake further notice-and-comment rulemaking actions to act on those submissions. This would create a regime of unceasing rulemaking that would delay action on the redesignation request beyond the 18-month timeframe provided by the Act for this purpose.

    Second, a fundamental premise for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment is that the area has attained the relevant NAAQS due to emission reductions from existing controls. Thus, an area for which a redesignation request has been submitted would have already attained the NAAQS as a result of satisfying statutory requirements that came due prior to the submission of the request. Absent a showing that unadopted and unimplemented requirements are necessary for future maintenance, it is reasonable to view the requirements applicable for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request as including only those SIP requirements that have already come due. These are the requirements that led to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, for redesignation approval, that a state also satisfy additional SIP requirements coming due after the state submits its complete redesignation request, and while EPA is reviewing it, would compel the state to do more than is necessary to attain the NAAQS, without a showing that the additional requirements are necessary for maintenance.

    d. Subpart 4 Requirements and the Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area Redesignation Request

    Even if EPA were to take the view that the Court's January 4, 2013, decision requires that, in the context of pending redesignations, subpart 4 requirements were due and in effect at the time the State submitted its redesignation request, EPA proposes to determine that the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area still qualifies for redesignation to attainment. As explained below, EPA believes that the redesignation request for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area, though not expressed in terms of subpart 4 requirements, substantively meets the requirements of that subpart for purposes of redesignating the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA Area to attainment.

    With respect to evaluating the relevant substantive requirements of subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, EPA notes that subpart 4 incorporates components of subpart 1 of part D, which contains general air quality planning requirements for areas designated as nonattainment. See section 172(c). Subpart 4 itself contains specific planning and scheduling requirements for PM109 nonattainment areas, and under the Court's January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same statutory requirements also apply for PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has longstanding general guidance that interprets the 1990 amendments to the CAA, making recommendations to states for meeting the statutory requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas.10 In the General Preamble, EPA discussed the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements and pointed out that subpart 1 requirements were to an extent “subsumed by, or integrally related to, the more specific PM-10 requirements.” See 57 FR 13538. The subpart 1 requirements include, among other things, provisions for attainment demonstrations, RACM, RFP, emissions inventories, and contingency measures.

    9 PM10 refers to particles nominally 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller.

    10See “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (the “General Preamble”).

    For the purposes of this redesignation, in order to identify any additional requirements which would apply under subpart 4, EPA is considering the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to be a “moderate” PM2.5 nonattainment area. Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas designated nonattainment areas under subpart 4 would initially be classified by operation of law as “moderate” nonattainment areas and would remain moderate nonattainment areas unless and until EPA reclassifies the area as a “serious” nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the evaluation of the potential impact of subpart 4 requirements to those that would be applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 4 apply to moderate nonattainment areas and include the following: (1) An approved permit program for construction of new and modified major stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); (2) an attainment demonstration (section 189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM (section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) quantitative milestones demonstrating RFP toward attainment by the applicable attainment date (section 189(c)).

    The permit requirements of subpart 4, as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit provisions requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM10, without adding to them. Consequently, EPA believes that section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself impose for redesignation purposes any additional requirements for moderate areas beyond those contained in subpart 1.11 In any event, in the context of redesignation, EPA has long relied on the interpretation that a fully approved nonattainment new source review program is not considered an applicable requirement for redesignation, provided the area can maintain the standard with a PSD program after redesignation. A detailed rationale for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled “Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment.” See also rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 FR 12467-12468, March 7, 1995); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 20458, 20469-20470, May 7, 1996); Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (61 FR 31834-31837, June 21, 1996).

    11 The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this redesignation is discussed below.

    With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under subpart 4,12 when EPA evaluates a redesignation request under either subpart 1 or 4, any area that is attaining the PM2.5 standard is viewed as having satisfied the attainment planning requirements for these subparts. As discussed above, for redesignations, EPA has for many years interpreted attainment-linked requirements as not applicable for areas attaining the standard.

    12i.e., attainment demonstration, RFP milestone requirements, and RACM.

    Therefore, even if we were to consider the Court's January 4, 2013, decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that attainment-related requirements specific to subpart 4 should be imposed retroactively 13 and thus are now past due, those requirements do not apply to an area that is attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standard for the purpose of evaluating a pending request to redesignate the area to attainment.

    13 As explained above, EPA does not believe that the Court's January 4, 2013, decision should be interpreted so as to impose these requirements on the states retroactively. Sierra Club v. Whitman, supra.

    Elsewhere in this document, EPA proposes to determine that the Area has attained the 1997 PM2.5 standard. Under its longstanding interpretation, EPA is proposing to determine here that the Area meets the attainment-related plan requirements of subparts 1 and 4.

    Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude that the requirements to submit an attainment demonstration under 189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination under section 189(a)(1)(C), and a RFP demonstration under 189(c)(1) are satisfied for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request.

    e. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5 Precursors

    The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA remanded to EPA the two rules at issue in the case with instructions to EPA to re-promulgate them consistent with the requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this section addresses the Court's opinion with respect to PM2.5 precursors. While past implementation of subpart 4 for PM10 has allowed for control of PM10 precursors such as NOX from major stationary, mobile, and area sources in order to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, CAA section 189(e) specifically provides that control requirements for major stationary sources of direct PM10 shall also apply to PM10 precursors from those sources, except where EPA determines that major stationary sources of such precursors “do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the standard in the area.”

    EPA's 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit, contained rebuttable presumptions concerning certain PM2.5 precursors applicable to attainment plans and control measures related to those plans. Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA provided, among other things, that a state was “not required to address VOC [and ammonia] as . . . PM2.5 attainment plan precursor[s] and to evaluate sources of VOC [and ammonia] emissions in the State for control measures.” EPA intended these to be rebuttable presumptions. EPA established these presumptions at the time because of uncertainties regarding the emission inventories for these pollutants and the effectiveness of specific control measures in various regions of the country in reducing PM2.5 concentrations. EPA also left open the possibility for such regulation of VOC and ammonia in specific areas where that was necessary.

    The Court in its January 4, 2013, decision made reference to both section 189(e) and 40 CFR 51.1002, and stated that, “In light of our disposition, we need not address the petitioners' challenge to the presumptions in [40 CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5 precursors, as subpart 4 expressly governs precursor presumptions.” NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10.

    Elsewhere in the Court's opinion, however, the Court observed: Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5 and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 7513a(e) [section 189(e)]. Id. at 21, n.7.

    For a number of reasons, EPA believes that its proposed redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is consistent with the Court's decision on this aspect of subpart 4. First, while the Court, citing section 189(e), stated that “for a PM10 area governed by subpart 4, a precursor is `presumptively regulated,' ” the Court expressly declined to decide the specific challenge to EPA's 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule provisions regarding ammonia and VOC as precursors. The Court had no occasion to determine whether and how it was substantively necessary to regulate any specific precursor in a particular PM2.5 nonattainment area, and did not address what might be necessary for purposes of acting upon a redesignation request.

    However, even if EPA takes the view that the requirements of subpart 4 were deemed applicable at the time that the state submitted the redesignation request, and disregards the implementation rule's rebuttable presumptions regarding ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 precursors, the regulatory consequence would be to consider the need for regulation of all precursors from any sources in the area to demonstrate attainment and to apply the section 189(e) provisions to major stationary sources of precursors. In the case of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, EPA believes that doing so is consistent with proposing redesignation of the area for the PM2.5 standard. The Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has attained the standard without any specific additional controls of VOC and ammonia emissions from any sources in the Area.

    Precursors in subpart 4 are specifically regulated under the provisions of section 189(e), which requires, with important exceptions, control requirements for major stationary sources of PM10 precursors.14 Under subpart 1 and EPA's prior implementation rule, all major stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors were subject to regulation, with the exception of ammonia and VOC. Thus, EPA must address here whether additional controls of ammonia and VOC from major stationary sources are required under section 189(e) of subpart 4 in order to redesignate the area for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. As explained below, EPA does not believe that any additional controls of ammonia and VOC are required in the context of this redesignation.

    14 Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for purposes of demonstrating attainment as expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to evaluate all economically and technologically feasible control measures for direct PM emissions and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures that are deemed reasonably available.

    In the General Preamble, EPA discusses its approach to implementing section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992). With regard to precursor regulation under section 189(e), the General Preamble explicitly stated that control of VOCs under other Act requirements may suffice to relieve a state from the need to adopt precursor controls under section 189(e). See 57 FR 13542. EPA in this rulemaking proposes to determine that even if not explicitly addressed by the State in its submission, the State does not need to take further action with respect to ammonia and VOCs as precursors to satisfy the requirements of section 189(e). This proposed determination is based on our findings that: (1) The Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area contains no major stationary sources of ammonia, and (2) existing major stationary sources of VOC are adequately controlled under other provisions of the CAA regulating the ozone NAAQS.15 In the alternative, EPA proposes to determine that, under the express exception provisions of section 189(e), and in the context of the redesignation of the Area, which is attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 standard, at present ammonia and VOC precursors from major stationary sources do not contribute significantly to levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. See 57 FR 13539.

    15 The Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has reduced VOC emissions through the implementation of various control programs including various on-road and non-road motor vehicle control programs.

    EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule provisions in 40 CFR 51.1002 were not directed at evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the context of redesignation, but rather the rule assesses SIP plans and control measures required to bring a nonattainment area into attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. By contrast, redesignation to attainment primarily requires the area to have already attained due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions, and to demonstrate that controls in place can continue to maintain the standard. Thus, even if EPA regards the Court's January 4, 2013, decision as calling for “presumptive regulation” of ammonia and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment planning provisions of subpart 4, those provisions in and of themselves do not require additional controls of these precursors for an area that already qualifies for redesignation. Nor does EPA believe that requiring the State to address precursors differently than they have already would result in a substantively different outcome.

    Although, as EPA has emphasized, its consideration here of precursor requirements under subpart 4 is in the context of a redesignation to attainment, EPA's existing interpretation of subpart 4 requirements with respect to precursors in attainment plans for PM10 contemplates that states may develop attainment plans that regulate only those precursors that are necessary for purposes of attainment in the area in question, i.e., states may determine that only certain precursors need be regulated for attainment and control purposes.16 Courts have upheld this approach to the requirements of subpart 4 for PM10.17 EPA believes that application of this approach to PM2.5 precursors under subpart 4 is reasonable. Because the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has already attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS with its current approach to regulation of PM2.5 precursors, EPA believes that it is reasonable to conclude in the context of this redesignation that there is no need to revisit the attainment control strategy with respect to the treatment of precursors. Even if the Court's decision is construed to impose an obligation, in evaluating this redesignation request, to consider additional precursors under subpart 4, it would not affect EPA's approval here of Tennessee's request for redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. In the context of a redesignation, Tennessee has shown that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has attained the standard. Moreover, the State has shown, and EPA has proposed to determine, that attainment in this Area is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions on all precursors necessary to provide for continued attainment. It follows logically that no further control of additional precursors is necessary. Accordingly, EPA does not view the January 4, 2013, decision of the court as precluding redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. In sum, even if Tennessee were required to address precursors for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area under subpart 4 rather than under subpart 1, EPA would still conclude that the Area had met all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v).

    16See “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM-10 Standards,” 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) (approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia emissions).

    17See Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).

    f. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of Precursors

    With regard to the redesignation of the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, in evaluating the effect of the Court's remand of EPA's implementation rule, which included presumptions against consideration of VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, EPA in this proposal is also considering the impact of the decision on the maintenance plan required under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To begin with, EPA notes that the Area has attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that the State has shown that attainment of that standard is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions.

    EPA proposes to determine that the State's maintenance plan shows continued maintenance of the standard by tracking the levels of the precursors whose control brought about attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. EPA therefore believes that the only additional consideration related to the maintenance plan requirements that results from the Court's January 4, 2013, decision is that of assessing the potential role of VOC and ammonia in demonstrating continued maintenance in this area. As explained below, based upon documentation provided by Tennessee and supporting information, EPA believes that the maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area need not include any additional emission reductions of VOC or ammonia in order to provide for continued maintenance of the standard.

    First, as noted above in EPA's discussion of section 189(e), VOC emission levels in this area have historically been well-controlled under SIP requirements related to ozone and other pollutants. Second, total ammonia emissions throughout the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL area are low, estimated to be approximately 370.9 tpy for 2007. See Table 7 below. As described below, available information shows that no precursor, including VOC and ammonia, is expected to increase significantly over the maintenance period so as to interfere with or undermine the State's maintenance demonstration.

    Table 7—Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and Ammonia Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the Tennessee Portion of the Area 18 Source sector VOC 2007 2020 Net change Ammonia 2007 2020 Net change Nonpoint 5,338.9 5,372.1 33.3 194.2 202.0 7.8 Nonroad 2,383.3 1,213.3 −1170 2.7 3.1 0.4 Onroad 4,797.5 1,541.8 −3255.7 161.6 92.5 −69.1 Point 1,047.0 1,038.1 −8.9 12.5 12.5 0 Total 13,566.6 9,165.4 −4,401.2 370.9 310.1 −60.8

    Tennessee's maintenance plan shows that emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 are projected to decrease over the maintenance period in the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area by 91.9 tpy, 7,890.4 tpy and 116.5 tpy, respectively. See Table 6 above. In addition, emissions inventories used in the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOC emissions are projected to decrease by 4,401.2 tpy and that ammonia emissions are projected to decrease by 60.8 tpy between 2007 and 2020. While the RIA emissions inventories are only projected out to 2020, there is no reason to believe that this overall downward trend would not continue through 2025. Given that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is already attaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS even with the current level of emissions from sources in the Area, the overall downward trend of emissions inventories is consistent with continued attainment. Even if VOC and ammonia emissions were to increase unexpectedly between 2020 and 2025, the overall emission reductions projected in SO2 and NOX would be sufficient to offset any increases. For these reasons, EPA believes that local emissions of all the potential PM2.5 precursors will not increase to the extent that they might cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate the 1997 Annual PM2.5 standard during the maintenance period.

    18 These emissions estimates were taken from the emissions inventories developed for the regulatory impact analysis for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    In addition, available air quality data and modeling analyses show continued maintenance of the standard during the maintenance period. As noted in section V, above, the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area recorded a PM2.5 design value of 10.5 μg/m3 during 2011-2013, the most recent three years available with complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data. This is well below the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/m3. Moreover, the modeling analysis conducted for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS indicates that the design value for this area is expected to continue to decline through 2020. Given the decrease in overall precursor emissions projected through 2025, it is reasonable to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels in this area will also continue to decrease through 2025.

    Thus, EPA believes that there is ample justification to conclude that the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area should be redesignated, even taking into consideration the emissions of VOC and ammonia potentially relevant to PM2.5. After consideration of the D.C. Circuit's January 4, 2013, decision, and for the reasons set forth in this document, EPA continues to propose approval of the State's maintenance plan and its request to redesignate the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    VII. What is EPA's analysis of Tennessee's proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL area?

    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the state's air quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestones. If a transportation plan does not conform, most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. The regional emissions analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for implementing transportation conformity. Transportation conformity is a requirement for nonattainment and maintenance areas. Maintenance areas are areas that were previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but have since been redesignated to attainment with an approved maintenance plan for that NAAQS.

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas. These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment demonstration) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be established for the last year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. The MVEBs is the portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. The MVEBs serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEBs concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, Transportation Conformity Rule. See 58 FR 62188. The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEBs in the SIP and how to revise the MVEBs.

    After interagency consultation with the transportation partners for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, Tennessee has elected to develop MVEBs for NOX and PM2.5 for the entire nonattainment area. Tennessee has developed these MVEBs, as required, for the last year of its maintenance plan, 2025. The MVEBs reflect the total on-road emissions for 2025, plus an allocation from the available NOX and PM2.5 safety margin. Under 40 CFR 93.101, the term “safety margin” is the difference between the attainment level (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The safety margin can be allocated to the transportation sector; however, the total emissions must remain below the attainment level. The NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs and allocation from the safety margin were developed in consultation with the transportation partners and were added to account for uncertainties in population growth, changes in model vehicle miles traveled and new emission factor models. The NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area are defined in Table 8 below.

    Table 8—Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs [tpy] PM2.5 NOX 2025 Mobile Emissions 76.5 2,508.7 2025 Safety Margin Allocated 23.5 691.3 2025 Total Mobile Budget 100.0 3,200.0

    In an effort to accommodate future variations in Travel Demand Models (TDM) and the vehicle miles traveled forecast when no change to the network is planned, TDEC consulted with the interagency consultation group, including EPA, to determine a reasonable approach to address this variation. The projected 2025 on-road motor vehicle emissions for direct PM2.5 and NOX are 76.5 tpy and 2,508.7 tpy, respectively. On-road emissions of SO2 are considered de-minimus; therefore, no budget for SO2 is required.19

    19 70 FR 24280, 24283 (May 6, 2005) (“While speciated air quality data show that sulfate is a relatively significant component (e.g., ranging from nine to 40 percent) of PM2.5 mass in all regions of the country, emissions inventory data and projections show that on-road emissions of SOX constitute a “de minimis” (i.e., extremely small) portion of total SOX emissions.”).

    A safety margin is necessary to accommodate the variabilities, or worst-case scenarios that can occur due to future planning assumptions. The worst-case daily motor vehicle emissions projection for PM2.5 is 23.5 tpy above the projected 2025 on-road emissions. In a worst-case scenario, the needed annual safety margin for the PM2.5 MVEB would be 23.5 tpy resulting in an overall MVEB of 100.0 tpy. The worst-case daily motor vehicle emissions projection for NOX is 691.3 tpy above the projected 2025 on-road emissions. In a worst-case scenario, the required annual safety margin for the NOX MVEB would be 691.3 tpy resulting in an overall MVEB of 3,200.0 tpy.

    Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs for NOX and PM2.5 for 2025 for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area because EPA has determined that the Area maintains the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS with the emissions at the levels of the budgets. Once the MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area are approved or found adequate (whichever is completed first), they must be used for future conformity determinations. After thorough review, EPA has determined that the budgets meet the adequacy criteria, as outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the budgets because they are consistent with maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025.

    VIII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2025 for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL area?

    When reviewing submitted “control strategy” SIPs or maintenance plans containing MVEB, EPA may affirmatively find the MVEB contained therein adequate for use in determining transportation conformity. Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for transportation conformity purposes, that MVEBs must be used by state and federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.

    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of MVEBs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining adequacy consists of three basic steps: Public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy determination. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance entitled “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.” EPA adopted regulations to codify the adequacy process in rulemaking entitled Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the “New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Change”; July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). Additional information on the adequacy process for transportation conformity purposes is available in the proposed rule entitled “Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes”; June 30, 2003 (68 FR 38974, 38984).

    As discussed earlier, Tennessee's maintenance plan submission includes NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area for 2025, the last year of the maintenance plan. EPA reviewed the NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs through the adequacy process, and the adequacy of the MVEBs was open for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web site on December 9, 2014, found at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The EPA public comment period on adequacy for the MVEBs for 2025 for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area closed on January 8, 2015. EPA did not receive any comments on the adequacy of the MVEBs, nor did EPA receive any requests for the SIP submittal.

    EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the 2025 MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area for transportation conformity purposes in the near future by completing the adequacy process that was started on December 9, 2014. After EPA finds the 2025 MVEBs adequate under 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1)(iv) or take final action to approve them into the Tennessee SIP under 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)(iii), the new MVEBs for NOX and PM2.5 must be used for future transportation conformity determinations. For required regional emissions analysis years that involve 2025 or beyond, the applicable budgets will be the new 2025 MVEBs established in the maintenance plan.

    IX. Proposed Actions on the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan SIP Revisions Including Approval of the NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2025 for the Tennessee Portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area

    On May 31, 2011, EPA determined that the Chattanooga TN-GA Area was attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76 FR 55774. EPA is now taking two separate but related actions regarding the Area's redesignation and maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    First, EPA is proposing to determine that, based upon review of complete, quality-assured and certified ambient monitoring data for the 2007-2009 period, and review of data in AQS for 2010 through 2013, that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to determine that the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has met the criteria under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On this basis, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's redesignation request for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area.

    Second, EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, including the PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 2025 submitted by Tennessee into the State's SIP (under section 175A). The maintenance plan demonstrates that the Area will continue to maintain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the budgets meet all of the adequacy criteria contained in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). Further, as part of today's action, EPA is describing the status of its adequacy determination for transportation conformity purposes for the PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for 2025 under 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). Within 24 months from the effective date of EPA's adequacy determination for the MVEBs or the effective date for the final rule approving the MVEBs into the Tennessee SIP, whichever is earlier, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e).

    If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81 from nonattainment to attainment.

    X. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?

    EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take final action on the issues being proposed for approval today. Approval of Tennessee's redesignation request would change the legal designation of Hamilton County in Tennessee for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment. Approval of TDEC's request would also incorporate a plan for maintaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area through 2025 into the Tennessee SIP. The maintenance plan includes contingency measures to remedy any future violations of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and procedures for evaluation of potential violations. The maintenance plan also includes NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the Tennessee portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. Additionally, EPA is notifying the public of the status of its adequacy determination for the NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2025 under 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1).

    XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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, these proposed actions merely approve state law as meeting federal requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:

    • 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);

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

    • Are 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.);

    • Do 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);

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

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

    • Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Are 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

    • Do 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: March 11, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06963 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 76 [CS Docket No. 98-120; FCC 15-29] Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission seeks comment on a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the American Cable Association (“ACA”) requesting, among other things, that the Commission extend for an additional three years the exemption from the requirement to carry high definition (“HD”) broadcast signals under the “material degradation” provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”) that it granted to certain small cable systems in the 2012 Fifth Report and Order. This exemption is slated to expire on June 12, 2015 absent further action by the Commission. We tentatively conclude that the public interest would be served by extending the HD carriage exemption for three years, or until June 12, 2018.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before April 16, 2015; reply comments are due on or before April 27, 2015. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act potential information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by CS Docket No. 98-120, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

    In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act potential information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to [email protected] For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Raelynn Remy of the Policy Division, Media Bureau at (202) 418-2120 or [email protected] For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Fifth FNPRM”), FCC 15-29, adopted on March 11, 2015 and released on March 12, 2015. The full text is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    The Fifth FNPRM seeks comment on potential information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any information collection requirements, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due May 26, 2015.

    Synopsis I. Introduction

    1. In this Fifth FNPRM, we seek comment on a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the American Cable Association (“ACA”) 1 requesting, among other things, that the Commission extend for an additional three years the exemption from the requirement to carry high definition (“HD”) broadcast signals under the “material degradation” provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”) 2 that it granted to certain small cable systems in the Fifth Report and Order (“HD carriage exemption”).3 This exemption is slated to expire on June 12, 2015 absent further action by the Commission. As discussed below, we tentatively conclude that the public interest would be served by extending the HD carriage exemption for three years, or until June 12, 2018. We set forth below a brief history of the HD carriage exemption and a summary of ACA's arguments in support of its Petition, and seek comment on our tentative conclusion to grant ACA's proposal.

    1See American Cable Association Petition for Rulemaking, CS Docket No. 98-120 (filed Jan. 27, 2015) (“Petition”).

    2See 47 U.S.C. 534(b)(4)(A), 535(g)(2) (material degradation requirements relating to signals of local commercial and noncommercial television stations, respectively).

    3See Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission's rules, Docket No. CS 98-120, Fifth Report and Order, 77 FR 36178 (2012) (“Fifth Report and Order”).

    II. Background

    2. Sections 614(b)(4)(A) and 615(g)(2) of the Act require that cable operators carry signals of commercial and noncommercial broadcast television stations, respectively, “without material degradation.” 4 In the context of the carriage of digital signals, the Commission has interpreted this requirement: (i) To prohibit cable operators from discriminating in their carriage between broadcast and non-broadcast signals; and (ii) to require cable operators to carry HD broadcast signals to their viewers in HD.5 In response to concerns from small cable operators about cost and technical capacity, the Commission, in the 2008 Fourth Report and Order, granted a three-year exemption from the HD carriage requirement to certain small cable systems.6 Specifically, the Commission exempted small cable systems with 2,500 or fewer subscribers that are not affiliated with a cable operator serving more than 10 percent of all MVPD subscribers, and those with an activated channel capacity of 552 MHz or less.

    4See section 614(b)(4)(A) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 534(b)(4)(A)). See also Section 615(g)(2) of the Act. See 47 U.S.C. 535(g)(2). See also 47 CFR 76.62(b) through (d), (h).

    5See Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission's rules, Docket No. CS 98-120, Third Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 73 FR 6043 (2007) (“Viewability Order”).

    6See Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission's rules, Docket No. CS 98-120, Fourth Report and Order, 73 FR 61742 (2008) (“Fourth Report and Order”).

    3. The exemption from this material degradation requirement permits such systems to carry broadcast signals in standard definition (“SD”) digital and/or analog format, even if the signals are broadcast in HD, so long as all subscribers can receive and view the signal.7 The Commission provided that the exemption would expire three years after the conclusion of the DTV transition, but stated that it would consider whether to extend the exemption in its final year.8 After conducting that review,9 the Commission, in the 2012 Fifth Report and Order, extended for an additional three years, or until June 12, 2015, the HD carriage exemption for certain small cable systems.10 The Commission stated that the exemption was not intended to be permanent and that its purpose was “to provide small systems additional time to upgrade and, where necessary, expand their systems to come into full compliance with the material degradation provisions . . . by carrying HD versions of all HD broadcast signals without having to make relatively large expenditures over a short period of time.” 11

    7Id., para. 5. The Commission concluded that cable operators, regardless of system size, need not carry an SD digital version of a broadcast station's signal, in addition to the analog version, to satisfy the material degradation requirement, because both an SD digital version and an analog version of the digital broadcast signal received at the headend should have the same 480i resolution; thus, there should be no perceivable difference between the two versions of the signal. Id.

    8See id., para. 11. See also Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the Commission's rules, Docket No. CS 98-120, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Order, 77 FR 9187 (2012) (“Fourth Further Notice”). The exemption would have expired on February 17, 2012, if Congress had not delayed the DTV transition date from February 17, 2009 until June 12, 2009. Id. In the 2012 Declaratory Order accompanying the Fourth Further Notice, the Commission clarified that the HD carriage exemption was effective until June 12, 2012 because the HD exemption was intended to remain in effect for three full years from the DTV transition date. Id.

    9See id., para. 3.

    10See id. The Commission extended the exemption based on its finding that the same financial and capacity constraints that confronted small cable operators when it initially granted the exemption in 2008 continued to exist. Id., para. 21. In particular, the Commission found that the exemption “remains necessary to protect the viability of small systems and their service to rural and smaller market consumers.” Id.

    11Id., para. 22. The Commission declined to restrict the exemption further by eliminating its application to systems that carry any signal in HD, as suggested by the National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”). In so doing, the Commission reasoned that the exemption had already been crafted narrowly to excuse only a limited number of systems with certain capacity constraints or low subscribership, and that a small system's ability to offer some HD service did not necessarily render that system capable of offering additional HD service. Id., para. 23. The Commission also expressed concern that restricting the exemption further would create a disincentive for systems to offer more HD programming incrementally. Id.

    4. On January 28, 2015, ACA filed its Petition requesting that the Commission: (i) Commence a rulemaking proceeding to extend for an additional three years the HD carriage exemption; and (ii) clarify that analog-only cable systems are not required, and have never been required, to transmit must-carry signals in HD.12 In general, ACA contends that the HD carriage exemption has worked as intended by providing eligible systems with additional time to provide must-carry signals in HD, but that the exemption is still needed to protect a small number of systems and their subscribers from the potential costs and service disruptions that would result from immediate compliance with an HD carriage requirement.13 In support of its request for an extension, ACA points to data from a recent survey 14 that shows that roughly 6%, or 53 of its members, continue to rely on it.15

    12See Petition at 1-2, 18.

    13Id. at 2.

    14 ACA conducted an online survey of its members from October 2 through October 22, 2014 to determine the number of systems still relying on the HD carriage exemption. Id. at 4, n.8. ACA represents approximately 840 independent MVPDs that serve about 7.4 million video subscribers primarily in smaller markets and rural areas. ACA's members range from family-run operations that serve a single town to multiple system operators with small systems. The median number of video subscribers per ACA member is 1,060. Id. at 4, n.9.

    15Id. at 4-5.

    5. With respect to the category of small systems that have a capacity of 552 MHz or less, ACA reports that 42 respondents (that account for at least 117 systems serving a total of 35,758 subscribers, or an average of 306 subscribers per system) continue to rely on the HD carriage exemption.16 Similarly, with respect to the category of systems that serve 2,500 or fewer subscribers and that are not affiliated with an operator serving more than 10 percent of all MVPD subscribers, ACA reports that 53 respondents (that account for 143 systems serving a total of 49,790 subscribers, or an average of 348 subscribers per system) 17 still rely on the exemption.18 The survey reveals further that these systems offer an average of 2.5 must-carry stations in a “down-converted” format only.19 Given this data, ACA asserts, imposing an HD carriage requirement at this time would be as detrimental to small systems today as it was when the Commission initially granted the exemption.20

    16Id. at 5. ACA asserts that the survey further indicates that: (i) Those systems offer an average of 2.3 must-carry stations in a down-converted format only; (ii) only 20.5% of those systems offer some HD television services; and (iii) 38.5% of those systems offer broadband service. Id. and Table 1.

    17 ACA reports that all 117 of the systems with a capacity of 552 MHz or less also have fewer than 2,500 subscribers, and that 81.8% of the systems with fewer than 2,500 subscribers also have a capacity of 552 MHz or less. See Petition at 5-6 and Tables 1, 2.

    18Id. at 6. ACA asserts that the survey further indicates that: (i) Those systems offer an average of 2.5 must-carry stations in a down-converted format only; (ii) only 25.9% of those systems offer some HD television services; and (iii) 54.4% of those systems offer broadband service. Id. and Table 2.

    19Id. Although ACA does not define “down-converted format,” we assume this term refers to a cable system's conversion of a high definition broadcast signal to standard definition when retransmitting the signal to subscribers.

    20Id. at 3.

    6. ACA argues that applying the HD carriage exemption to cable systems with 552 MHz or less of channel capacity is still justified because such systems continue to face significant bandwidth constraints that affect their ability to provide must-carry signals in both analog and HD format.21 To support its assertion, ACA points to survey data demonstrating that for 81% of respondents with a capacity of 552 MHz or less, the amount of unused channel capacity that is available for new channels or services either has decreased 22 or remained the same 23 in the past three years. ACA asserts further that a substantial majority of survey respondents in this category report that they cannot deliver HD signals without changing existing channels or services, and that it would be burdensome for them to make available channel capacity for HD signals.24 ACA contends that imposing an HD carriage requirement at this time would harm subscribers of these systems by forcing such systems: (i) To drop channels; (ii) to continue providing signals only in a down-converted format, thereby risking Commission enforcement action; or (iii) to cease operations entirely.25

    21Id. at 7-8.

    22Id. at 8 and Table 4. According to ACA, the decrease in unused channel capacity has resulted from the need of operators to accommodate non-broadcast programmers that demand carriage of additional channels in exchange for access to, or less drastic rate increases for, popular non-broadcast channels. Id. at 8-9. ACA also attributes this decrease in capacity to the need of operators to allocate capacity for broadband services. Id. at 9.

    23 ACA asserts that the most common reason reported for no change in channel capacity was that the system was channel locked three years ago and remains the same today due to a lack of financial resources for capacity expansion or the absence of a business case to support such expansion. Id.

    24Id. and Table 5.

    25Id. at 10. ACA reports that 45.2% of survey respondents in this category would shut down their systems; 14.3% would drop existing channels; and 19% would risk Commission enforcement action rather than comply with an HD carriage requirement. Id.

    7. ACA contends that extending the HD carriage exemption to cable systems with 2,500 or fewer subscribers (and that are not affiliated with an operator serving more than 10 percent of all MVPD subscribers) also remains justified because such systems still lack the financial resources necessary to purchase equipment needed to provide HD signals.26 To support its assertion, ACA points to survey data showing that an overwhelming number of systems in this category reported that their net income from video services has declined over the last three years.27 ACA contends, based on its survey, that many such systems would need to purchase additional equipment to offer must-carry signals in HD, and that doing so would be financially burdensome for them.28 ACA argues that requiring these systems to transmit HD signals would force them to absorb the equipment costs or pass such costs on to subscribers, and that these harms far outweigh any benefits derived from an HD carriage mandate.29 ACA also highlights concerns about cost and compliance that may result from the upcoming broadcast spectrum incentive auction because the auction could result in fewer stations and/or channel sharing.30

    26Id. at 11-12.

    27Id. at 12-13 and Table 6.

    28Id. at 13-14.

    29Id. at 14. ACA reports that 37.3% of cable systems in this category would shut down their systems rather than invest in the equipment needed to comply with an HD carriage requirement; 22% would risk Commission enforcement action; and 35.6% would absorb or pass along to their subscribers the cost of the requisite equipment. Id.

    30Id. at 3, 15.

    8. Moreover, ACA asserts that the number of cable systems relying on the HD carriage exemption is declining and will continue to decline over the next three years.31 In particular, ACA claims that more than 200 fewer systems are using the HD exemption today than in 2012, and that by June 2018, only 73 of the 143 systems that are currently relying on the exemption are expected to still be in operation and meet the criteria for taking advantage of the exemption.32 ACA anticipates that this decline in the number of systems will result from system shutdowns or system upgrades to increase channel capacity.33 ACA argues that “[g]iven . . . the trend of decreasing reliance . . . it is appropriate to extend the HD exemption for the relatively few remaining operators that continue to rely on the exemption.” 34

    31Id. at 15.

    32Id. at 15-16. We note, however, that the number of ACA members reporting that they rely on the HD exemption has increased from 52 to 53. See Fifth Report and Order, 77 FR 36178 (2012).

    33Petition at 15-16.

    34Id. at 16.

    9. Finally, ACA seeks a clarification that cable systems that offer video programming only in analog are not required, and have never been required, to transmit must-carry signals in HD because such carriage is not “technically feasible” within the meaning of section 614(b)(4)(A) of the Act and its implementing rules.35 In particular, ACA contends that:

    35 As noted above, section 614(b)(4)(A) of the Act requires that cable operators transmit local broadcast signals “without material degradation” and directs the Commission to “adopt carriage standards to ensure that, to the extent technically feasible, the quality of signal processing and carriage provided . . . will be no less than that provided . . . for the carriage of any other type of signal.” See 47 U.S.C. 534(b)(4)(A) (emphasis added).

    analog-only systems are unable to carry any HD signals. If an analog-only system had the capability of carrying an HD signal, which can only be done in digital format, the system would no longer be, by definition, an analog-only system. It would be a hybrid analog/digital system.36

    36See Petition at 17.

    ACA claims that a small number of cable systems that rely on the HD carriage exemption would benefit from the requested clarification, and that this number is decreasing.37 Even so, ACA asserts, some analog-only systems will remain in operation, and many of those systems provide the only available video service in rural areas where over-the-air reception of broadcast signals is infeasible.38

    37Id.

    38Id. ACA also asserts that in some cases, all-analog systems provide a locally operated, lower cost service that allows customers to receive basic cable programming without the need for set-top boxes. Id.

    III. Discussion

    10. We tentatively conclude that it would serve the public interest to extend the HD carriage exemption for an additional three years as requested by ACA. Based on the results of ACA's survey, we tentatively conclude that the exemption is still necessary to protect the subscribers of small cable systems from the costs and service disruptions that may result from requiring those systems to deliver HD signals in HD beginning in June 2015. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on whether we should retain or revise the definition of the category of small cable systems eligible for the exemption. The fact that small operators that continue to rely on the exemption have, on average, only 348 subscribers per system 39 suggests that our current definition of “small system” is overly broad. To the extent parties assert that we should restrict further the category of small systems eligible for the exemption, what is the appropriate small system standard? What, if any, harms would accrue to small systems if we were to narrow further the category of systems eligible for the exemption? What, if any, benefits would result from narrowing the exemption?

    39Id. at 4-5.

    11. We seek comment on whether any circumstances have changed since release of the Fifth Report and Order that weigh in favor of revisiting our decision not to eliminate the HD carriage exemption for systems carrying any signal in HD.40 As noted, ACA's data indicate that at least 20 percent of systems relying on the exemption are currently offering some HD digital television services.41 In particular, we request comment on whether there is any evidence that exempt systems that provide HD programming have discriminated unfairly against must-carry HD signals in favor of other HD signals. We also request comment on whether systems that carry a significant amount of HD programming, such as ten HD channels, should continue to be able to qualify for the exemption.

    40 As noted above, the Commission, in the Fifth Report and Order, declined to eliminate application of the HD carriage exemption to systems that carry any signal in HD on the grounds that a system's ability to offer some HD service did not refute an argument that offering additional HD service was burdensome, and that not allowing such systems to invoke the exemption would discourage them from taking incremental steps to offer more HD programming to subscribers.

    41Petition at 5-6.

    12. In addition, we seek comment on the costs and benefits of the exemption for broadcasters and cable subscribers. Commenters should quantify any asserted costs or benefits. We also request comment on whether any claimed benefits to small cable systems of extending the exemption for another three years would outweigh the costs to broadcasters and cable subscribers. How many, if any, small systems relying on the exemption have received complaints from subscribers about the absence or amount of HD programming available to them? ACA's data also reveal that some systems relying on the exemption currently provide broadband service.42 How many, if any, such systems would reduce or eliminate such service if required to carry HD signals in June 2015?

    42Id. at 5-7 and Tables 2, 3.

    13. We also invite comment on whether an additional three years will provide adequate time for eligible systems to upgrade their facilities to provide HD signals. Although ACA's data indicate that at least 200 fewer cable systems are relying on the HD exemption today than did in 2012, the data also indicate that the number of ACA cable operator members relying on the HD exemption has not changed significantly. Therefore, do these data points reflect actual progress of ACA members coming into compliance with the HD carriage requirement? For example, to what extent is the decrease in the number of systems relying on the exemption attributable to the fact that some operators have expanded system capacity to provide signals in HD (thus rendering them ineligible for the exemption), or the fact that systems have ceased operations? 43 In addition, ACA estimates that more than 70 of the 143 systems that currently invoke the exemption are expected to be eligible for the exemption in June 2018.44 To the extent some systems expect that they still will be unable to provide HD signals in three years, when would such systems likely be able to comply with an HD carriage requirement? That is, we invite comment on the plans of these small systems to upgrade to HD. We seek comment on whether there are any systems for which the costs of providing HD signals likely will outweigh the benefits for the indefinite future, and, if so, the projected number of such systems. We invite comment on any other issues that are relevant to our determination whether to extend the HD carriage exemption for small cable systems. We also seek comment on any other approach to this issue that would appropriately balance the interest of broadcast stations in being carried in HD and the technical and financial limitations some small cable operators face. In addition, we request comment on whether there is any merit to ACA's argument that requiring small systems to provide HD signals at this time would be inequitable given the uncertainty surrounding the broadcast spectrum incentive auction.

    43 Although ACA states that “some systems that relied on the HD exemption in the past no longer rely upon it because a business case materialized for an upgrade to occur,” ACA also asserts that “system shutdowns [will be] the primary reason that there will be fewer systems relying on the HD exemption” in the next three years. Petition at 16 and n.33. ACA thus contends that “the benefit of the HD exemption is not only in avoiding the hastening of system closings, but in giving systems time to make upgrades possible.” Id.

    44Id. at 15-16.

    14. We note that the HD exemption was not intended to be permanent and that, based on ACA's survey, a number of systems must make greater progress in complying with the HD carriage requirement. Assuming we were to adopt our tentative conclusion to extend the exemption for three more years, we seek comment on what steps we can take to facilitate such compliance within that time period. For example, should we require individual cable systems that rely on the exemption to file information with the Commission indicating such, so that we can better understand the particular technical and financial challenges faced by these systems and track each system's progress for coming into compliance with the HD carriage requirement?

    15. Finally, we seek comment on ACA's request for clarification that all-analog systems are not subject to the HD carriage requirement because such carriage is technically infeasible under Section 614(b)(4)(A) of the Act and its implementing rules. How many cable systems that currently rely on the exemption are all-analog systems? To what extent are all-analog systems capable of passing the ATSC 45 digital broadcast signal through to their customers for reception on digital televisions? What upgrades, if any, to an all-analog system's cable amplifiers and other equipment outside the headend would be required to support passing through the ATSC signal on a cable channel? What upgrades would be required in the headend?

    45 Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's rules prescribes that digital broadcast television signals must comply with certain privately developed engineering protocols that the rule incorporates by reference. See 47 CFR 73.682(d). The channel identification data that a station transmits, for example, must comply with “ATSC A/65C: `ATSC Program and System Information Protocol for Terrestrial Broadcast and Cable, Revision C With Amendment No. 1 dated May 9, 2006,' (January 2, 2006).” Id.

    IV. Procedural Matters A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    16. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”),46 the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (“IRFA”) of the possible economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the actions proposed in this Fifth FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Fifth FNPRM as indicated on its first page. The Commission will send a copy of the Fifth FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).47 In addition, the Fifth FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.48

    46See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (“SBREFA”), Pub. L. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

    47See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

    48 See id.

    1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rule Changes

    17. In the accompanying Fifth FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on, among other things, whether to extend for an additional three years the exemption from the requirement to carry high definition (“HD”) broadcast signals under the “material degradation” provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, that it granted to certain small cable systems in the 2012 Fifth Report and Order (“HD carriage exemption”).49 The Fifth FNPRM stems from a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the American Cable Association principally requesting that the Commission extend this exemption, which will expire on June 12, 2015 without action by the Commission. In the Fifth FNPRM, the Commission tentatively concludes that the public interest would be served by extending the HD carriage exemption for three years, or until June 12, 2018. In particular, the Commission tentatively concludes that the HD carriage exemption is still necessary to protect the subscribers of small cable systems from the costs and service disruptions that may result from requiring those systems to deliver HD signals in HD beginning in June 2015. The exemption applies to operators of cable systems with 2,500 or fewer subscribers that are not affiliated with a cable operator serving more than 10% of all MVPD subscribers, and to those with an activated channel capacity of 552 MHz or less.

    49See Fifth FNPRM at paras. 10-15.

    2. Legal Basis

    18. The authority for the action proposed in this rulemaking is contained in sections 4, 303, 614, and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 534, and 535.

    3. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    19. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed actions if adopted.50 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 51 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.52 A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).53 The action proposed herein will affect small cable system operators and small television broadcast stations. A description of these small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, is provided below.

    50 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).

    51 5 U.S.C. 601(b).

    52 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”

    53 15 U.S.C. 632.

    20. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide.54 Industry data indicate that there are currently 660 cable operators.55 Of this total, all but ten cable operators nationwide are small under this size standard.56 In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers.57 Current Commission records show 4,629 cable systems nationwide.58 Of this total, 4,057 cable systems have less than 20,000 subscribers, and 572 systems have 20,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, we estimate that most cable systems are small entities.

    54 47 CFR 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size standard equates approximately to a size standard of $100 million or less in annual revenues.

    55 NCTA, Industry Data, Number of Cable Operators and Systems, http://www.ncta.com/Statistics.aspx (visited October 13, 2014). Depending upon the number of homes and the size of the geographic area served, cable operators use one or more cable systems to provide video service.

    56See SNL Kagan, “Top Cable MSOs—12/12 Q”; available at http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/TopCableMSOs.aspx?period=2012Q4&sortcol=subscribersbasic&sortorder=desc.

    57 47 CFR 76.901(c).

    58 The number of active, registered cable systems comes from the Commission's Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS) database on October 10, 2014. A cable system is a physical system integrated to a principal headend.

    21. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” 59 There are approximately 54 million cable video subscribers in the United States today.60 Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 540,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.61 Based on available data, we find that all but ten incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size standard.62 We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million.63 Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.

    59 47 U.S.C. 543(m)(2); see 47 CFR 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.

    60See NCTA, Industry Data, Cable's Customer Base, http://www.ncta.com/industry-data (visited October 13, 2014).

    61 47 CFR 76.901(f).

    62See NCTA, Industry Data, Top 25 Multichannel Video Service Customers (2012), http://www.ncta.com/industry-data (visited Aug. 30, 2013).

    63 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to Section 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 76.901(f).

    22. Open Video Systems. The open video system (OVS) framework was established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers.64 The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services,65 OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” 66 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees.67 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms that operated for that entire year.68 Of this total, 2,940 firms had fewer than 100 employees, and 248 firms had 100 or more employees.69 Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of these businesses can be considered small entities.

    64 47 U.S.C. 571(a)(3) through (4).

    65See 47 U.S.C. 573.

    66See 13 CFR 121.201, 2012 NAICS code 517110. This category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is defined in part as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    67 13 CFR 121.201; 2012 NAICS code 517110.

    68 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. See U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, “Information: Subject Series—Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Establishments for the United States: 2007—2007 Economic Census,” NAICS code 517110, Table EC0751SSSZ5; available at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ5&prodType=table.

    69Id.

    23. Television Broadcasting. This economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” 70 The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: Those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.71 The 2007 U.S. Census indicates that 808 firms in this category operated in that year. Of that number, 709 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or less, and 99 had annual receipts of more than $25,000,000.72 Because the Census has no additional classifications that could serve as a basis for determining the number of stations whose receipts exceeded $38.5 million in that year, we conclude that the majority of television broadcast stations were small under the applicable SBA size standard.

    70 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “515120 Television Broadcasting,” at http://www.census.gov./cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

    71 13 CFR 121.201; 2012 NAICS code 515120.

    72 U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC0751SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series—Establishment and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2007 (515120), http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ4&prodType=table.

    24. Apart from the U.S. Census, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,387 stations.73 Of this total, 1,221 stations (or about 88 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on July 2, 2014. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 395.74 NCE stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.75 Based on these data, we estimate that the majority of television broadcast stations are small entities.

    73See Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2014, Press Release (MB rel. July 9, 2014) (Broadcast Station Totals) at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-328096A1.pdf.

    74See Broadcast Station Totals, supra.

    75See generally 5 U.S.C. 601(4), (6).

    25. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above definition, business (control) affiliations 76 must be included. Because we do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies in determining whether an entity meets the revenue threshold noted above, our estimate of the number of small entities affected is likely overstated. In addition, we note that one element of the definition of “small business” is that an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, our estimate of small television stations potentially affected by the proposed rules includes those that could be dominant in their field of operation. For this reason, such estimate likely is over-inclusive.

    76 “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both.” 13 CFR 21.103(a)(1).

    4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    26. The accompanying Fifth FNPRM seeks comment on, among other things, whether to extend for an additional three years the HD carriage exemption, which would affect small cable system operators and television broadcast stations. The exemption benefits small cable system operators by providing them with continued flexibility, and imposes no new regulatory compliance burdens on small television broadcast stations who need take no action as a result of the proposed extension.

    5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    27. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.77 We seek comment on the applicability of any of these alternatives to affected small entities.

    77 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (c)(4).

    28. Extending the HD carriage exemption likely would not have an adverse economic impact on any small entities, and would have a positive economic impact on small cable system operators that choose to take advantage of the exemption. In addition, extending the exemption would not impose any significant burdens on small television stations. We invite small entities to submit comment on the impact of extending the HD carriage exemption, and on how the Commission could minimize any potential burdens on small entities.

    6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

    29. None.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    30. This document seeks comment on potential information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the potential information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.78 In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the potential information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.79

    78 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 of Title 44 U.S.C.).

    79 The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA), Pub. L. 107-198, 116 Stat 729 (2002) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.); see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    C. Ex Parte Rules

    31. The proceeding this document initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.80 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    80 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.

    D. Filing Requirements

    32. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,81 interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).

    81See 47 CFR 1.415, 1419.

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

    33. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

    34. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    35. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

    36. For Additional Information: Contact Raelynn Remy of the Policy Division, Media Bureau, at [email protected] or (202) 418-2936.

    V. Ordering Clauses

    37. It is Ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 4, 303, 614, and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 534, and 535, this Fifth FNPRM is adopted.

    38. It is further ordered that the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Fifth FNPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06943 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 350 [Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0470] State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrying Vehicles; Listening Session AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public listening session.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA announces that it will hold a public listening session on April 14, 2015, to solicit information concerning section 32710 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). This provision requires FMCSA to complete a rulemaking proceeding to consider requiring States to establish a program for annual inspections of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) designed or used to transport passengers. Additionally, under MAP-21, FMCSA must assess the risks associated with improperly maintained or inspected CMVs designed or used to transport passengers; the effectiveness of existing Federal standards for the inspection of such vehicles in mitigating the risks associated with improperly maintained vehicles and ensuring the safe and proper operation condition of such vehicles; and the costs and benefits of a mandatory inspection program. Any data regarding this topic would be appreciated. The session will be held at the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's (CVSA) workshop in Jacksonville, Florida. All comments will be transcribed and placed in the docket referenced above for FMCSA's consideration. The entire proceeding will be webcast.

    DATES:

    The listening session will be held on Tuesday, April 14, 2015, from 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., Local Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The listening session will be held at the Hyatt Regency Jacksonville Riverfront, 225 East Coastline Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32202, in the Clearwater Ballroom. In addition to attending the session in person, the Agency offers several ways to provide comments, as enumerated below.

    Internet Address for Live Webcast. FMCSA will post specific information on how to participate via the Internet on the FMCSA Web site at www.fmcsa.dot.gov in advance of the listening sessions.

    You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2014-0470 using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received, without change, to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The online Federal document management system is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you would like acknowledgment that the Agency received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments on-line.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannon L. Watson, Senior Policy Advisor, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 or by telephone at 202-366-2551. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    If you need sign language interpretation or any other accessibility accommodations, please contact Ms. Watson by close of business on Wednesday, April 8, 2015, to allow us to arrange for such services. FMCSA cannot guarantee that interpreter services requested on short notice will be provided.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2014-0470), and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, put the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0470, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on the “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 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 draft a request for further comment to support consideration of further regulatory action.

    Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2014-0470, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

    I. Background

    On July 6, 2012, the President signed MAP-21 into law. The new law included certain requirements concerning State inspection programs for passenger-carrying vehicles (e.g., motorcoaches). Specifically, section 32710 requires the Secretary of Transportation to complete a rulemaking proceeding to consider requiring States to establish a program for annual inspections of CMVs designed or used to transport passengers. FMCSA must also include an assessment of the following: (1) The risks associated with improperly maintained or inspected CMVs designed or used to transport passengers; (2) the effectiveness of existing Federal standards for the inspection of such vehicles in (a) mitigating the risks associated with improperly maintained vehicles; and (b) ensuring the safe and proper operation condition of such vehicles; and (3) the costs and benefits of a mandatory inspection program. Any data with regard to the topic would be appreciated.

    To help inform consideration of the MAP-21 requirements, the Agency believes it would be helpful to conduct a public listening session to provide all interested parties the opportunity to share their views on the subject. The April 14 meeting is the third in a series of sessions. The previous listening sessions were announced on December 22, 2014 (79 FR 76295) and conducted on January 13 and January 18, 2015. The Agency requests information on the following questions:

    • Does your State or the States in which you domicile buses conduct mandatory bus inspections? Are these inspections conducted annually and by State employees or 3rd party inspectors? If conducted by 3rd party inspectors, what oversight is or should be required? What is the cost of these inspections?

    • If your State imposes mandatory inspection of buses, how do you assess the effectiveness of such inspections? For example, have you measured the occurrence of bus-involved crashes, injuries and/or fatalities before and after the imposition of a mandatory inspection requirement?

    • Which vehicle defects are most prevalent at these inspections? What conclusions do you draw from the results of these inspections?

    • Where should these inspections be performed? At a “brick and mortar” facility or at the carrier's place of business? If at the carrier's place of business, what accommodations must be made to ensure appropriate access (e.g. pits, lifts, etc.) to conduct full inspections of motorcoaches and other large vehicles? What should the fees be for the various types of inspections?

    • How much does it cost to establish and run inspection programs on an annual basis? Would self-inspection or 3rd party inspections be an option to a State inspection? How would the costs differ? Do you envision other more preferable options?

    • Should States allow fleets to self-inspect? How many fleets use their own mechanics, as opposed to 3rd party inspectors, to conduct bus inspections?

    • Has your State or organization collected data related to crashes, injuries and/or fatalities attributable to improperly maintained or inspected buses? If so, what conclusions have you drawn from that data?

    II. Meeting Participation and Information FMCSA Seeks From the Public

    The listening session is open to the public. Speakers should try to limit their remarks to 3-5 minutes. No preregistration is required. Attendees may submit material to the FMCSA staff at the session for inclusion in the pubic docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.

    FMCSA will docket the transcripts of the webcast and a separate transcription of the listening session will be prepared by an official court reporter.

    Issued on: March 24, 2015. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07054 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 [Docket No. 150122069-5272-01] RIN 0648-XD740 Endangered and Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on Two Petitions To List Porbeagle Sharks AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    90-day petition finding; request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, are accepting two 2010 petitions to list porbeagle sharks (Lamna nasus) on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. This action is being taken in response to a December 12, 2014, U.S. District Court decision that our previous rejection of the petitions in 2010 was arbitrary and capricious. To ensure a comprehensive review, we are soliciting scientific and commercial data and other information relevant to the status of porbeagle sharks worldwide. We will publish the results of that review and will make a finding as to whether the petitioned action is or is not warranted on or before December 12, 2015.

    DATES:

    Written comments, data and information related to this petition finding must be received no later than 5 p.m. local time on May 12, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0013, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.

    1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= NOAA-NMFS-2015-0013,

    2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields

    3. Enter or attach your comments.

    - OR -

    Mail: Submit written comments to Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Attn: Porbeagle Shark Status Review, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted without change for public viewing on www.regulations.gov. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    The petitions and other pertinent information are also available electronically on our Web site at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/pcp/soc/porbeagle_shark.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kimberly Damon-Randall, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region, (978) 281-9328; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, HQ, (301) 427-8469.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    We received a petition from Wild Earth Guardians (WEG) dated January 20, 2010, requesting that we list porbeagle sharks (Lamna nasus) throughout their entire range, or as Northwest Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic, and Mediterranean Distinct Population Segments (DPS) under the ESA, as well as designate critical habitat for the species. We also received a petition from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), dated January 21, 2010, requesting that we list a Northwest Atlantic DPS of porbeagle sharks as endangered in the North Atlantic under the ESA. Information contained in the petitions focused on the species' imperilment due to historical and continued overfishing; modification of habitat through pollution, climate change, and ocean acidification; failure of regulatory mechanisms; and low productivity of the species.

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving a petition, the Secretary make a finding whether the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (90-day finding). The ESA implementing regulations for NMFS define “substantial information” as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). If a positive 90-day finding is made, then we must promptly conduct a review of the status of the species concerned and publish a finding indicating whether the petitioned action is or is not warranted within one year (1-year finding).

    On July 12, 2010, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (75 FR 39656; http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/frnotices/negative90d/porbeagle_shark_75_fr_39656.pdf) stating that neither petition presented substantial information indicating that listing porbeagle sharks may be warranted. Accordingly, a status review of the species was not initiated.

    In August 2011, the petitioners filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging our denial of the petitions (Case 1:11-cv-01414-BJR HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES v. BLANK et al.). On November 14, 2014, the court published a Memorandum Opinion vacating the 2010 90-day finding for porbeagle shark, and ordering NMFS to prepare a new 90-day finding. The court entered final judgment on December 12, 2014. This document represents our new 90-day finding.

    Given the length of time between when we received the petitions in 2010 and this new 90-day finding, we have taken into account both information submitted with and referenced in the petitions as well as all other new information readily available in our files regarding porbeagle sharks globally. We have thoroughly reviewed the Court's Memorandum Opinion, the 2010 petitions and all other information available in our files in preparing our new finding. As we did in 2010, we consulted with experts within the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office's Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS' Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Northeast Fisheries Science Center- Apex Predator Program, and the Southeast Fisheries Science Center in November and December 2014 to provide context for the petitions and the information in our files.

    The 2010 Petitions and New Information on Porbeagle Sharks

    Both petitions clearly identified themselves as petitions and included the identification information for the petitioner, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). The petitions indicated their recommended administrative measure and gave the scientific and common names for porbeagle sharks. The WEG petition requested that we list under the ESA porbeagle sharks throughout their entire range. Alternatively, the WEG petition proposed that porbeagle be listed under the ESA as three distinct population segments (DPSs) as follows: The Northwest Atlantic DPS, the Northeast Atlantic DPS and the Mediterranean DPS. The petition states “the species and DPSs face threats from historic and continued overfishing, as well as a low reproduction rate, which hinders its recovery.” The information contained in the WEG petition focuses on historical and continued overfishing of the above named DPSs of porbeagle sharks globally. The HSUS petition only addresses a Northwest Atlantic DPS of porbeagle sharks, requesting they be listed as endangered in the Northwest Atlantic.

    Several new references were available in our files since remand that were not available when the 2010 petitions were received. In 2009, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) conducted a stock assessment for porbeagle sharks (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). The information in this report was considered in our 2010 90-day finding, and this report continues to be a good source of recent, comprehensive porbeagle shark data. However, there is a new Canadian assessment for the Northwest Atlantic stock based on information contained in Campana et al. 2012 (2012 Canadian assessment). Also, other new information is contained in recent ICCAT proceedings, regulatory documents, published literature and FR notices since the ICES/ICCAT 2009 stock assessment (Andrushchenko et al./Canada, 2014; Bendall et al., 2013; Campana et al., 2012; Canada/ICCAT, 2014; CPC/ICCAT, 2014; Gallagher et al., 2014; Kitamura and Matsunaga, 2010; Marua et al., 2012; NEAFC/ICCAT, 2013; NMFS/HMS, 2013; SCRS, 2014; Semba et al., 2013; 75 FR 250; 79 FR 75068; 50 CFR part 635).

    Additionally, several new management actions were implemented or became effective prior to remand, but after the 2010 petitions were received. These include the addition of porbeagle sharks to Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, a 2013 prohibition on directed fishing for porbeagle in Canada and increasing protections in the European Union (EU) which will more closely regulate trade of the species.

    In 2014, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) published a new assessment and status report on porbeagle sharks in Canada. The report reaffirms COSEWIC's designation of the species as “endangered” due to COSEWIC criterion A2b under the Species at Risk Act. The report states the species meets this criterion “because the abundance of mature females has declined by 74-77% over the past 2.6 generations. Although the directed fishery has been suspended, the species continues to be taken as bycatch in a variety of other fisheries.” As noted throughout the report, the species decline has halted, and while numbers of porbeagle remain low compared to pre-exploitation levels, the information does indicate the species trend is stable. The report states that in Canada, the “greatest current threat to porbeagle is overfishing due to multiple bycatch fisheries, which are not closely monitored, where a large portion of the catch may be discarded and unreported.” While this report is an update of a 2004 COSEWIC report, relied upon by the petitioners, which also assessed porbeagle as endangered based on the decline that the species has experienced, the emphasis the new status report places on the potential threat to the species from ongoing, unregulated bycatch in Canada is of concern and represents new information not previously considered. A status review is the appropriate means for assessing this potential threat.

    COSEWIC also provides information on whether the Northwest Atlantic stock constitutes a single designatable unit. The report indicates that the Northeast and Northwest populations of porbeagle sharks are separate. This conclusion appears to be based solely on conventional tagging information, consistent with the petitions, and does not appear to incorporate any information from genetic studies. In our 2010 finding, we concluded, based on genetic information, that porbeagle from the Northeast and Northwest Atlantic are not discrete. While we believe genetics are a more reliable indicator of discreteness than tagging information, we recognize the uncertainty about the existence of discrete populations. The appropriate means for addressing this uncertainty is to consider the information in a review of the status of the species.

    Petition Finding

    In light of the information described above, which indicates that the petitioned actions may be warranted, we are accepting the petitions and initiating a review of the status of the species.

    Information Solicited

    To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information concerning porbeagle sharks. We request information from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, conservation groups, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the current and/or historical status of porbeagle sharks.

    Specifically, we are soliciting information, including unpublished information, in the following areas: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of porbeagle sharks throughout their range; (2) historical and current population trends for porbeagle sharks; (3) life history and habitat requirements of porbeagle ; (4) genetics and population structure information (including morphology, ecology, behavior, etc.) for populations of porbeagle; (5) past, current, and future threats to porbeagle, including any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore porbeagle and their habitat; and (7) management, regulatory, and enforcement information pertaining to porbeagle. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.

    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA directs that a determination must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” On or before December 12, 2015, we will issue a 12-month determination based on a review of the best scientific and commercial data available, including all relevant information received from the public in response to this 90-day finding.

    You may submit your information concerning this finding by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that in our final determination we may not consider comments we receive after the date specified in the DATES section. If you submit your information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission including personal identifying information will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hard copy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

    Information and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at NMFS' Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office.

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: March 23, 2015. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07073 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    80 59 Friday, March 27, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 23, 2015.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by April 27, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Animal Welfare.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0036.

    Summary of Collection: The Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (AWA) (Pub. L. 89-544) enacted August 24, 1966, and as amended, requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture, (USDA), to regulate the humane care and handling of dogs, cats, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, and nonhuman primates. This legislation was the result of extensive demand by organized animal welfare groups and private citizens requesting a Federal law covering the transportation, care, and handling of laboratory animals. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Animal Care (AC) has the responsibility to enforce the AWA (7 U.S.C. 2131-2156) and the provisions of 9 CFR, Subchapter A, which implements the AWA. The purpose of the AWA is to ensure that animals used in research facilities or for exhibition purposes are provided humane care and treatment. The AWA assures the humane treatment of animals during transportation in commerce and protects the owners from the theft of their animals by preventing the sale or use of animals that were stolen. APHIS will collect information using several forms of burden.

    In addition, APHIS is merging 0579-0361 and 0579-0392 into this information collection, 0579-0036. Upon the approval of this information collection, APHIS will retire 0579-0361 and 0579-0392.

    Need and Use of the Information: APHIS will collect health certificates, program of veterinary care, application for license and record of acquisition, disposition and transportation of animals, and itineraries, among other things. The information is used to ensure dealers, exhibitors, research facilities, carriers, etc., are in compliance with the AWA and regulations and standards promulgated under this authority of the Act.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Farms; Not-for-profits; Individuals; State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondents: 13,985.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 136,364.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Poultry and Pork Products from Mexico Transiting the United States.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0145.

    Summary of Collection: The Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) of 2002 is the primary Federal law governing the protection of animal health. The law gives the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to detect, control, or eradicate pests or diseases of livestock or poultry. The Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the Agency charged with carrying out the disease prevention mission. This Agency regulates the importation of animals and animal products into the United States to guard against the introduction of exotic animal diseases. Disease prevention is the most effective method for maintaining a healthy animal population and enhancing the United States' ability to compete in exporting animals and animal products. The regulations under which APHIS conducts disease prevention activities are contained in Title 9, Chapter D, parts 91 through 99 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Need and Use of the Information: APHIS will collect information to ensure that fresh pork and pork products, as well as poultry carcasses, parts, and products transiting the United States from Mexico pose a negligible risk of introducing classical swine fever and END into the United States. APHIS will also collect the name and address of the exporter, the origin and destination points of the commodities, how much and what type of commodity will be transiting; the intended port of entry, the date of transportation, the method and route of shipment, and other information concerning the transiting project that will enable APHIS to determine whether any disease introduction risk is associated with the transit and if so, what risk mitigation measures will be necessary to minimize that risk.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Federal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 29.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 33.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Pale Cyst Nematode; Quarantine and Regulations.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0322.

    Summary of Collection: Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, or movement of plants and plant pests to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amended the “Domestic Quarantine Notices” in 7 CFR part 301, subpart titled “Potato Cyst Nematode” (§ .86 through 301.86.9, referred to as the regulations) by quarantining parts of Bingham and Bonneville Counties, ID, due to the discovery of the Potato Cyst Nematode there and establishing restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from the quarantined area.

    Need and Use of the Information: APHIS will collect information using certificates, limited permits and compliance agreements to prevent the spread of PCN and to ensure that regulated articles can be moved safely from the quarantined area without spreading PCN. If APHIS did not collect this information, the spread of PCN in the United States could result in a loss of domestic or foreign makers for U.S. potatoes and other commodities.

    Description of Respondents: Farms; Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 152.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 342.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Importation of Mangoes from Australia.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0391.

    Summary of Collection: Under the Plant Protection Act (PPA) (7 U.S.C 7701—et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests new to the United States or not known to be widely distributed throughout the United States. The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (Title 7, CFR 319.56) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the U.S. from certain parts of the world. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for carrying out these duties. APHIS has amended the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow, under certain conditions, the importation into the U.S. of commercial consignments of fresh mangoes from Australia.

    Need and Use of the Information: Conditions for the importation of fresh mangoes from Australia include requirements for pest exclusion at the production site, irradiation treatment, fruit fly trapping inside and outside the production site, pest-excluding packinghouse procedures, port-of-entry inspections and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the National Plant Protection Organization of Australia with an additional declaration confirming that the mangoes have been produced in accordance with the requirements. APHIS will use this information to allow the importation of commercial consignments of fresh mangoes from Australia into the United States. Failing to collect this information would cripple APHIS ability to ensure that mangoes from Australia are not carrying plant pests.

    Description of Respondents: Federal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 20.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 50.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06973 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    United States Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Briefing notice.

    DATES:

    Date and Time: Monday, April 20, 2015; 9:00 a.m.-5:45 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Place: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 524 West 59th Street, New York, NY 10019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.

    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at [email protected] at least seven business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This briefing is open to the public.

    Topic: Police Practices and Use of Force I. Introductory Remarks II. Panel I. 9:10 a.m.-10:40 a.m.: Community Leaders, Civilian Review Boards, and Police Organizations Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners III. Panel II. Law 10:40 a.m.-12:10 p.m.: Enforcement Officials and Experts on Police Accountability and Use of Force Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners IV. LUNCH—12:10 p.m.-1:10 p.m. V. Panel III. 1:15 p.m.-2:45 p.m.: Court Officials and Experts on Procedural Justice and Legal Reforms Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners VI. Panel IV. 2:45 p.m.-4:15 p.m.: Federal Agencies and Federally-funded Initiatives Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners VII. Panel V. 4:15 p.m.-5:45 p.m.: Researchers and Data Collection Experts Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners VIII. Adjourn Briefing—5:45 p.m. Dated: March 25, 2015. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07171 Filed 3-25-15; 4:30 pm] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census Census Scientific Advisory Committee; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee (C-SAC). The Committee will address policy, research, and technical issues relating to a full range of Census Bureau programs and activities, including communications, decennial, demographic, economic, field operations, geographic, information technology, and statistics. The C-SAC will meet in a plenary session on April 16-17, 2015. Last minute changes to the schedule are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments. Please visit the Census Advisory Committees Web site for the most current meeting agenda at: http://www.census.gov/cac/. The meeting will be available via webcast at: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/census-live.html.

    DATES:

    April 16-17, 2015. On April 16, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 4 p.m. On April 17, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 12:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau Auditorium, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Collier, Assistant Division Chief, Customer Liaison and Marketing Services Office, [email protected], U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H185, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-6590. For TTY calls, please use the Federal Relay Service 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the C-SAC are appointed by the Director, U.S. Census Bureau. The Committee provides scientific and technical expertise, as appropriate, to address Census Bureau program needs and objectives. The Committee has been established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10).

    All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment on April 17. However, individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to: [email protected] (subject line “April 2015 C-SAC Meeting Public Comment”), or by letter submission to the Committee Liaison Officer, April 2015 C-SAC Meeting, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H185, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233.

    If you plan to attend the meeting, please register by Tuesday, April 14, 2015. You may access the online registration from the following link: https://www.regonline.com/censusscientificadvisorycommitteemeeting2015. Seating is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis.

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer as soon as known, and preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.

    Due to increased security and for access to the meeting, please call 301-763-9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.

    Topics to be discussed include the following items:

    • 2020 Census Update.

    • Reorganized Census with Integrated Technology (ROCkIT).

    • Census Enterprise Data Collection and Processing Systems (CEDCaP).

    • 2015 Census Test Update.

    • BIG Data.

    • Center for Enterprise Dissemination Services and Consumer Innovation (CEDSCI).

    • American Community Survey (ACS) Content Review Results.

    Dated: March 20, 2015. John H. Thompson, Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07066 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Applications for Watch Duty-Exemption and 7113 Jewelry Duty-Refund Program AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, 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 May 26, 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 Supriya Kumar, Subsidies Enforcement Office, (202) 482-3530, [email protected] and fax number (202) 501-7952.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The Departments of Commerce and the Interior are required by Public Law 97-446, as amended by Public Law 103-465, Public Law 106-36 and Public Law 108-429, to administer the distribution of watch duty-exemptions and watch and jewelry duty-refunds to program producers in the U.S. insular possessions and the Northern Mariana Islands. The primary consideration in collecting information is the enforcement of the laws and the information gathered is limited to that necessary to prevent abuse of the program and to permit a fair and equitable distribution of its benefits. The Form ITA-340P is used to provide the data to assist in verification of duty-free shipments of watches into the United States and make certain the allocations are not exceeded. Forms ITA-360P and ITA-361P are necessary to implement the duty-refund program for the watch and jewelry producers. Form ITA-360P requires no information unless the recipient wishes to transfer the certificate. Form ITA-361P must be completed each time a certificate holder wishes to obtain a portion, or all, of the duty-refund authorized by the certificate. The duty-refund benefit is issued biannually and the forms are used for the distribution of the duty-refund benefit.

    II. Method of Collection

    Paper format or electronically

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0134.

    Form Number(s): ITA-340P, ITA-360P, ITA-361P.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.

    Estimated Time per Response: 46 minutes for Form ITA-340P; 10 minutes for Form ITA-361P; and 1 minute to transfer certificate using Form ITA-360P.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1.

    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: March 23, 2015. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06948 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-489-805] Certain Pasta From Turkey: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta (pasta) from Turkey. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014, and covers Beşsan Makarna Gida San. Ve Tic. A.S. (Bessan). Because no interested party commented on the Preliminary Results,1 we have not made any changes since the Preliminary Results. The final weighted-average dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of Review.”

    1See Certain Pasta From Turkey: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2013-2014, 80 FR 863 (January 7, 2015) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: March 27, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tyler Weinhold or Robert James, 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) 482-1121, or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On January 7, 2015, the Department published the Preliminary Results, and invited interested parties to comment. The Department did not receive any comments on the Preliminary Results.

    Period of Review

    The POR covered by this proceeding is July 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order are certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms) or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions. Excluded from the scope of this review are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well as all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white.

    The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under item 1902.19.20 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 subject to the order is dispositive.

    Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the POR July 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014:

    Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-average
  • dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Beşsan Makarna Gida San. Ve Tic. A.S 0.00
    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Because Bessan's weighted average dumping margin is zero, in accordance with the Final Modification, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced and exported by Bessan without regard to antidumping duties.2 For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced and exported by Bessan for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.3 We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    2See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification).

    3 For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of new shipper review for all shipments of pasta from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Bessan shall be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period in which the manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 51.49 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.4 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    4See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta From Turkey, 61 FR 38545 (July 24, 1996).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.

    Dated: March 18, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06951 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance 2/27/2015 through 3/23/2015 Firm name Firm address Date accepted for
  • investigation
  • Product(s)
    Glass River Design, LLC 113 Salado Plaza Drive, Salado, TX 76571 3/13/2015 The firm manufactures glass products for plumbing fixtures and counter tops, architectural glass panels, doors, and signage. Matrix IV, Inc 610 Judd Street, Woodstock, IL 60098 3/13/2015 The firm manufactures injection plastic resins into molds of various sizes and shapes.

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Dated: March 23, 2015. Michael S. DeVillo, Eligibility Examiner.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07057 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products previously provided by such agency.

    DATES:

    Comments Must be Received on or Before: 4/27/2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    For Further Information or To Submit Comments Contact: Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Products PRODUCT NAMEs/NSNs: Neck Lanyard, Cord Style, J-Hook, Black, 36″ x .25″/8455-00-NIB-0040 Neck Lanyard, Strap Style, J-Hook, Black, 36″ x .75″/8455-00-NIB-0041 Neck Lanyard, Strap Style, J-Hook, Tan, 36″ x .75″/8455-00-NIB-0042 Neck Lanyard, Cord Style, J-Hook, Tan, 36″ x .25″/8455-00-NIB-0043 Clip Adapter, Strap, 100 PK/8455-00-NIB-0046 Holder, Identification, Smart Card, RFID Shielded, Opaque, Bulk PK/8455-00-NIB-0047 MANDATORY FOR PURCHASE BY: Total Government Requirement MANDATORY SOURCE OF SUPPLY: West Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, San Angelo, TX CONTRACTING ACTIVITY: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX DISTRIBUTION: A-List Service SERVICE TYPE: Custodial and Related Service SERVICE IS MANDATORY FOR: GSA PBS Region 4, Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 100 West Troy Street, Dothan, AL G. W. Andrews Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 701 Avenue A, Opelika, AL Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 908 Alabama Street, Selma, AL MANDATORY SOURCE OF SUPPLY: Goodwill Industries of Central Alabama, Inc., Montgomery, AL CONTRACTING ACTIVITY: GSA, Public Buildings Service, Acquisition Division/Services Branch, Atlanta, GA Deletions

    The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products PRODUCT NAMEs/NSNs: Tray, Desk, Plastic, Side Loading, Stackable, Legal, Beige/7520-01-094-4310 Tray, Desk, Plastic/7520-01-466-0483 MANDATORY SOURCE OF SUPPLY: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC CONTRACTING ACTIVITY: General Services Administration, New York, NY Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07047 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2015-OS-0026] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. 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 of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within the same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to: The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) ATTN: David Frasher, 220 12th Street, South, Suite 203, Arlington, VA 22202-5408 or call (703) 601-4459 or Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management (DISAM), ATTN: Ernest McCallister, 2475 K Street, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7803, or call Director of International Studies, at 937-713-3305.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Security Cooperation Training Management System, SC-TMS TRAINING FORM, OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: Security Cooperation Training Management System (SC-TMS): Is a web based database used to exchange Security Cooperation training information between overseas Security Cooperation Offices, Geographical Combatant Commands, Military Departments, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, DoD Schoolhouses, Regional Centers, and International Host Nation Organizations. The Security Cooperation Training Management System (SC-TMS) is a tool used by the Security Cooperation community to manage International Military Student training data. Reports of annual training of Foreign nationals to Congress as required by 22 U.S.C. 2394 (Foreign Assistance Act (FAA)) and 22 U.S.C. 2770A (Arms Export Control Act (AECA)).

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 10,995 hours.

    Number of Respondents: 43,980.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 43,980.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 min.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are foreign military and foreign civilian government employees in Department of Defense (DoD) training in support of U.S. foreign policy as prescribed by the President of the United States, Congress and Departments of State and Defense. Security Cooperation and Assistance programs as authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) require collection of data to manage DoD training of international military students. If the information on the student form is not collected, DoD schoolhouses will not able to process students for attendance in resident or at mobile training locations in compliance with DepSecDef directive and federal law requiring the reporting of training of foreign nationals (ref. AECA).

    Dated: March 23, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07014 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal Nos. 15-02] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 15-02 with attached transmittal and policy justification.

    Dated: March 23, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN27MR15.006 Transmittal No. 15-02 Notice of Proposed Issuance of letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) Of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Jordan

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 0 million. Other $ 80 million. Total $ 80 million. * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: two 35 Meter Coastal Patrol Boats with two MSI Defence Systems LTD SEAHAWK A2 DS30M-30mm Gun Weapon Systems with MK44 Bushmaster Cannons, 1,140 rounds of 30mm Target-Practice-Tracer (TP-T) ammunition, 4,020 rounds of 30mm High Explosive Incendiary with Tracer (HEI-T) ammunition, 60 rounds of 30mm inert dummy ammunition and two chaff systems, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy (SAI)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: N/A

    (vi) Sales Commissions, Fee etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article Proposed to be Sold: None

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 16 March 2015

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION

    The Government of Jordan has requested a possible sale of two 35 Meter Coastal Patrol Boats with two MSI Defence Systems LTD SEAHAWK A2 DS30M-30mm Gun Weapon Systems with MK44 Bushmaster Cannons, 1,140 rounds of 30mm Target-Practice-Tracer (TP-T) ammunition, 4,020 rounds of 30mm High Explosive Incendiary with Tracer (HEI-T) ammunition, 60 rounds of 30mm inert dummy ammunition and two chaff systems, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated cost is $80 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a partner which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. It is vital to the U.S. national interest that Jordan develops and maintains a strong and ready self-defense capability and enhances its ability to protect its territorial waters.

    Jordan will have no difficulty absorbing these boats into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor is undetermined at this time and will be determined during negotiations. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require the temporary assignment of approximately two U.S. Government or contractor representatives in Jordan on an intermittent basis over the life of the case.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    [FR Doc. 2015-06960 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [Docket ID: USAF-2015-0001] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Department of the Air Force, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Air Force proposes to alter a system of records notice, F036 AETC W entitled “Air Force Institute of Technology Student Information System (AFITSIS) Records” in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.

    This system integrates all aspects of student information management. It provides core functions required for resident student graduate education, management of students in civilian institution programs, and course management for civil engineering education programs. The system also provides support for registration, academic programs, course offerings, grades, education planning, candidate packages, resource scheduling, degree auditing, financial reimbursements/forecasting, and official transcript generation.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before April 27, 2015. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Charles J. Shedrick, Department of the Air Force, Air Force Privacy Office, Office of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, ATTN: SAF/CIO A6, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1800, or by phone at (571) 256-2515.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of the Air Force's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on January 7, 2015 to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: March 23, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. F036 AETC W System name:

    Air Force Institute of Technology Student Information System (AFITSIS) Records (January 4, 2010, 75 FR 136).

    Changes: System name:

    Delete entry and replace with “Air Force Institute of Technology Data Applications Knowledge System (AFITDAKS).”

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Air Force active duty members, reservists, Department of Defense (DoD) civilian employees, and other federal government employees attending civilian institutions.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Name, social security number (SSN), federal identification number (FIN), unique system created identification number, gender, race, date of birth, country of citizenship, mailing and home address, home telephone, personal email address, occupation, pay grade, rank, assigned unit identification code (UIC), service affiliation, government agency, course work, grades, academic program, emergency contact information, personal cell telephone, and security clearance.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 8013, Secretary of the Air Force; Air Force Instruction 36-2201, Air Force Training Program; Air Force Instruction 36-2301, Developmental Education; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses published at the beginning of the Air Force's compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system.”

    Storage:

    Delete entry and replace with “Records are stored electronically within the Air Force Institution of Technology Data storage.”

    Retrievability:

    Delete entry and replace with “Name, unique system-created identification number, and/or Social Security Number (SSN).”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Records are maintained in a secure facility on the installation; physical entry is restricted by security guards and presentation of authenticated identification badges at entry control points, and cipher locks and key cards for access into buildings. Records are accessed by the custodian of the record system and by person(s) responsible for servicing the record system in the performance of their official duties using Common Access Cards. Persons are properly screened and cleared for access. The information is protected by using user profiles, passwords, and encryption. User profiles are role-based and ensure that only data accessible to the individual's role will appear on the screen.”

    System manager(s) and address:

    Delete entry and replace with “Director, Communications and Information, 2950 Hobson Way, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433-7765.”

    Notification procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Director, Communications and Information, 2950 Hobson Way, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433-7765.

    For verification purposes, individual should provide their full name and any details which may assist in locating records, and their signature.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”

    Record access procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Director, Communications and Information, 2950 Hobson Way, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433-7765.

    For verification purposes, individual should provide their full name and any details which may assist in locating records, and their signature. In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C., 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”

    Contesting records procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “The Air Force rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations, are published in Air Force Instruction 33-332, The Air Force Privacy and Civil Liberties Program; 32 CFR part 806b; or may be obtained from the system manager.”

    [FR Doc. 2015-07270 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal Nos. 15-04] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 15-04 with attached transmittal, policy justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: March 23, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN27MR15.007 Transmittal No. 15-04 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Mexico

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 80 million. Other $ 30 million. Total $110 million. * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: three UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters in standard USG configuration, with designated unique equipment, Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), six T700-GE-701D Engines, six H-764G Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems (EGIs), six M134 7.62mm Machine Guns, three Star Safire III Forward Looking Infrared Radar Systems, three Aviation Mission Planning Systems, twelve AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles, and one Aviation Ground Power Unit. Also included are spare and repair parts, support equipment, communication equipment, facility construction, air worthiness support, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, warranties, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, and other related element of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Army (UEU Amendment #2)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any:

    FMS case UEJ $110M-3Mar10 FMS case UEU-$190M-24Jun14

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 16 March 2015

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Mexico—UH-60M Black Hawk Helicopters

    The Government of Mexico has requested a possible sale of three UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters in standard USG configuration, with designated unique equipment, Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), six T700-GE-701D Engines, six H-764G Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems (EGIs), six M134 7.62mm Machine Guns, three Star Safire III Forward Looking Infrared Radar Systems, three Aviation Mission Planning Systems, twelve AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles, and one Aviation Ground Power Unit. Also included are spare and repair parts, support equipment, communication equipment, facility construction, air worthiness support, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, warranties, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, and other related element of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $110 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner. Mexico has been a strong partner in combating organized crime and drug trafficking organizations. The sale of these UH-60M helicopters to Mexico will significantly increase and strengthen its capability to provide in-country airlift support for its forces engaged in counter-drug operations.

    Mexico intends to use these defense articles and services to modernize its armed forces and expand its existing naval/maritime support in its efforts to combat drug trafficking organizations.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractors will be the Sikorsky Aircraft Company in Stratford, Connecticut; and General Electric Aircraft Company (GEAC) in Lynn, Massachusetts. There are no known offset agreements in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale may require the assignment of one additional U.S. Government representative and one contractor representative in country full-time to support the delivery and training for approximately two years.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 15-04 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter is a medium lift aircraft, equipped with two T700-GE-701D Engines. The Navigation System for each helicopter will have Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation (EGIs), two Digital Advanced Flight Control Systems (DAFCS), one ARN-149 Automatic Direction Finder, and one ARN-147 (VOR/ILS marker Beacon System). Each helicopter will also have one ARN-153 Tactical Navigation (TACAN), two air data computers, one Safire III Forward Looking Infrared Radar System, and one Radar Altimeter system. The communication equipment will include the AN/APX-118 or AN/APX-123 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system. The AN/ARC-210 RT-8100 Series Very/Ultra High Frequency (V/UHF) radio will be included in the UH-60M configuration.

    2. The AN/APX-118 or AN/APX-123 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Transponder is capable of Modes 1, 2, 3, 3a and 4 and is Unclassified.

    3. The AN/ARC-210 RT-8100 Series radio is a V/UHF voice and data capable radio using commercial encryption.

    4. The H-764G Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (EGI) unit provides EGI capabilities to the aircraft. The EGI will include Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) security modules to be used for secure GPS Precise Positioning Service if required.

    5. The Star Safire III Forward Looking Infrared Radar System is a long-range, multisensory infrared imaging radar system. It is considered non-standard equipment for the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter. It will be used to enhance night flying and provide a level of safety for passengers during night flights.

    6. (U) If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    7. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    8. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Mexico.

    [FR Doc. 2015-06976 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity Meeting AGENCY:

    National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of an open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the agenda for the June 25-26, 2015 meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), and provides information to members of the public on submitting written comments and on requesting to make oral comments at the meeting. The notice of this meeting is required under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and Section 114(d)(1)(B) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended.

    DATES:

    The NACIQI meeting will be held on June 25-26, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., at a location to be determined in the Washington DC area. The exact location of the meeting will be published in the Federal Register and on the Department Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi.html#meetings by May 25, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8080, Washington, DC 20006.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patricia Howes, Committee Coordinator, NACIQI, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 8061, Washington, DC 20006-8129, telephone: (202) 502-7769, fax: (202) 502-7874, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NACIQI's Statutory Authority and Function: The NACIQI is established under Section 114 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), 20 U.S.C. 1011c. The NACIQI advises the Secretary of Education about:

    • The establishment and enforcement of the criteria for recognition of accrediting agencies or associations under Subpart 2, Part H, Title IV of the HEA, as amended.

    • The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations or a specific State public postsecondary vocational education or nurse education approval agency.

    • The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations.

    • The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV of the HEA, together with recommendations for improvement in such process.

    • The relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions.

    • Any other advisory function relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary may prescribe.

    Meeting Agenda: In addition to its review of accrediting agencies and State approval agencies for Secretarial recognition, the meeting agenda will include Committee discussions regarding the Committee's policy recommendations to advise the Secretary in preparation for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). Below is a list of agencies, including their current and requested scopes of recognition, scheduled for review during the June 25-26, 2015 meeting:

    Petitions for Recognition Based on a Compliance Report Accrediting Agencies

    1. Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing, Inc. (ACEN) (Current Scope: Accreditation of nursing education programs and schools, both postsecondary and higher degree, which offer a certificate, diploma, or a recognized professional degree including clinical doctorate, masters, baccalaureate, associate, diploma, and practical nursing programs in the United States and its territories, including those offered via distance education.)

    2. American Optometric Association, Accreditation Council on Optometric Education (ACOE) (Current Scope: The accreditation in the United States of professional optometric degree programs, optometric technician (associate degree) programs, and optometric residency programs, and for the preaccreditation categories of Preliminary Approval for professional optometric degree programs and Candidacy Pending for optometric residency programs in Department of Veterans Affairs facilities.)

    3. Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, Accreditation Commission (AARTS) (Current Scope: The accreditation and pre-accreditation (“Correspondent” and “Candidate”) within the United States of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools.)

    4. National Association of Schools of Dance, Commission on Accreditation (NASD) (Current Scope: The accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions that offer dance and dance-related programs (both degree and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance education.)

    5. National Association of Schools of Music, Commission on Accreditation NASM) (Current Scope: The accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions that offer music and music-related programs (both degree- and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance education.)

    6. National Association of Schools of Theatre, Commission on Accreditation (NAST) (Current Scope: The accreditation throughout the United States of freestanding institutions that offer theatre and theatre-related programs (both degree and non-degree-granting), including those offered via distance education.)

    7. New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Commission on Institutions of Higher Education (NEA-CIHE) (Current Scope: The accreditation and pre-accreditation (“Candidacy status”) of institutions of higher education in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont that award bachelor's, master's, and/or doctoral degrees and associate degree-granting institutions in those states that include degrees in liberal arts or general studies among their offerings, including the accreditation of programs offered via distance education within these institutions).

    8. North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, The Higher Learning Commission (NCA-HLC) (Current Scope: The accreditation and preaccreditation (“Candidate for Accreditation”) of degree-granting institutions of higher education in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, including the tribal institutions and the accreditation of programs offered via distance education and correspondence education within these institutions. This recognition extends to the Institutional Actions Council jointly with the Board of Trustees of the Commission for decisions on cases for continued accreditation or reaffirmation, and continued candidacy, and to the Appeals Body jointly with the Board of Trustees of the Commission for decisions related to initial candidacy or accreditation or reaffirmation of accreditation.)

    Request for an Expansion of Scope

    1. American Psychological Association, Commission on Accreditation (APA) (Current Scope: The accreditation in the United States of doctoral programs in clinical, counseling, school and combined professional-scientific psychology; predoctoral internship programs in professional psychology; and postdoctoral residency programs in professional psychology.) (Requested scope: The accreditation in the United States of doctoral programs in clinical, counseling, school and combined professional-scientific psychology; doctoral internship programs in health service psychology; and postdoctoral residency programs in health service psychology.)

    Petition for Approval of a State Agency for Vocational Education Based on a Compliance Report

    1. Puerto Rico State Agency for the Approval of Public Postsecondary Vocational, Technical Institutions and Programs (PRHRDC) (Current Scope: The approval of public postsecondary, vocational-technical institutions.)

    Submission of written comments regarding a specific accrediting agency or state approval agency under review: Written comments about the recognition of a specific accrediting or State agency must be received by May 1, 2015, in the [email protected] mailbox and include the subject line “Written Comments: (agency name).” The email must include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number of the person(s) making the comment. Comments should be submitted as a Microsoft Word document or in a medium compatible with Microsoft Word (not a PDF file) that is attached to an electronic mail message (email) or provided in the body of an email message. Comments about an agency's recognition after review of a compliance report must relate to the issues raised in the compliance report and the criteria for recognition cited in the Secretary's letter that requested the report. Third parties having concerns about agencies regarding matters outside the scope of a compliance report should report those concerns directly to the Department to be reviewed as a complaint. Only material submitted by the deadline to the email address listed in this notice, and in accordance with these instructions, becomes part of the official record concerning agencies scheduled for review and are considered by the Department and NACIQI in their deliberations. Please do not send material directly to NACIQI members.

    Submission of requests to make an oral comment regarding a specific accrediting agency or state approval agency under review: Oral comments about agencies seeking renewal of recognition must relate to the issues raised in the agency's compliance report and the criteria for recognition cited in the Secretary's letter that requested the report. There are two methods by which the public may seek to make a third-party oral comment of three minutes concerning one of the agencies scheduled for review at the June 25-26, 2015 meeting.

    Method One: Submit a request by email to the [email protected] mailbox. Please do not send material directly to NACIQI members. Requests must be received by May 1, 2015, and include the subject line “Oral Comment Request: (agency name).” The email must include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, telephone number, of the person(s) requesting to speak, and a brief summary (not to exceed one page) of the principal points to be made during the oral presentation. All individuals submitting an advance request in accordance with this notice will be afforded an opportunity to speak.

    Method Two: Register at the meeting location on June 25, 2015, to make an oral comment during NACIQI's deliberations concerning a particular agency or institution scheduled for review. The requestor must provide his or her name, title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number. A total of up to fifteen minutes during each agency review will be allotted for oral commenters who register on June 25, 2015. Individuals will be selected on a first-come, first-served basis. If selected, each commenter may not exceed three minutes.

    The oral comments made will become part of the official record and will be considered by the Department and NACIQI in their deliberations. No individual in attendance or making oral presentations may distribute written materials at the meeting.

    Access to Records of the Meeting: The Department will post the official report of the meeting on the NACIQI Web site 90 days after the meeting. Pursuant to the FACA, the public may also inspect the materials at 1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC, by emailing [email protected] or by calling (202) 219-7067 to schedule an appointment.

    Reasonable Accommodations: The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format), notify the contact person listed in this notice at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting date. Although we will attempt to meet a request received after that date, we may not be able to make available the requested auxiliary aid or service because of insufficient time to arrange it.

    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. Delegation of Authority: The Secretary of Education has delegated authority to Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary, to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.

    Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 1011c.

    Jamienne S. Studley, Deputy Under Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07076 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Application Deadline for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015; Small, Rural School Achievement Program Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.358A. AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) awards grants on a formula basis to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs) to address the unique needs of rural school districts. In this notice, we establish the deadline for submission of fiscal year (FY) 2015 SRSA grant applications. An eligible LEA that is required to submit an application must do so electronically by the deadline in this notice.

    DATES:

    Application Deadline: June 30, 2015, 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC, time.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eric Schulz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E107, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 401-0039 or by email: [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Which LEAs are eligible for an award under the SRSA program?

    An LEA (including a public charter school that is considered an LEA under State law) is eligible for an award under the SRSA program if—

    (a) The total number of students in average daily attendance at all of the schools served by the LEA is fewer than 600, or each county in which a school served by the LEA is located has a total population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and

    (b)(1) All of the schools served by the LEA are designated with a school locale code of 7 or 8 by the Department's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES); or

    (2) The Secretary has determined, based on a demonstration by the LEA and concurrence of the State educational agency, that the LEA is located in an area defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.

    Note:

    The school locale codes are the locale codes determined on the basis of the NCES school code methodology in place on the date of enactment of section 6211(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.

    Which eligible LEAs must submit an application to receive an FY 2015 SRSA grant award?

    An eligible LEA must submit an application to receive an FY 2015 SRSA grant award if that LEA has never submitted an application for SRSA funds in any prior year.

    All eligible LEAs that need to submit an application to receive an SRSA grant award in a given year are highlighted in yellow on the SRSA eligibility spreadsheets, which are posted annually on the SRSA program Web site at www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligibility.html.

    Under the regulations in 34 CFR 75.104(a), the Secretary makes a grant only to an eligible party that submits an application. Given the limited purpose served by the application under the SRSA program, the Secretary considers the application requirement to be met if an LEA submitted an SRSA application for any prior year. In this circumstance, unless an LEA advises the Secretary by the application deadline that it is withdrawing its application, the Secretary deems the application that an LEA previously submitted to remain in effect for FY 2015 funding, and the LEA does not have to submit an additional application.

    We intend to provide, by March 30, 2015, a list of LEAs eligible for FY 2015 funds on the Department's Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligibility.html. This list will indicate which eligible LEAs must submit an electronic application to the Department to receive an FY 2015 SRSA grant award, and which eligible LEAs are considered already to have met the application requirement.

    Eligible LEAs that need to submit an application in order to receive FY 2015 SRSA funds must do so electronically by the deadline established in this notice.

    Electronic Submission of Applications: An eligible LEA that is required to submit an application to receive FY 2015 SRSA funds must submit an electronic application by June 30, 2015, 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC, time. If it submits its application after this deadline, the LEA will receive a grant award only to the extent that funds are available after the Department awards grants to other eligible LEAs under the program.

    Applications to receive FY 2015 SRSA funds may be obtained from, and must be submitted electronically using, the G5 system, accessible through the Department's G5 site at: www.G5.gov. When applicants access this site, they will receive specific instructions regarding the information to include in the SRSA application.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 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.

    Program Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 7345-7345b.

    Dated: March 24, 2015. Deborah S. Delisle, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07138 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2004-0006; FRL—9923-65-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Community Right-to-Know Reporting Requirements Under Sections 311 and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Community Right-to-Know Reporting Requirements under Sections 311 and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1352.13, OMB Control No. 2050-0072) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR 71753) on December 3, 2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2004-0006, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected] or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8019; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Sections 311 and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11011, 11012) require owners and operators of facilities subject to OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) to submit an inventory form of chemicals or MSDSs (for those chemicals that exceed thresholds, specified in 40 CFR part 370) to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), Tribal Emergency Response Commission (TERC), Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), Tribal Emergency Planning Committee (TEPC) and the local fire department (LFD) with jurisdiction over their facility.

    The submittal of an inventory form allows local emergency planners/responders and the community to have access to information regarding the hazards of a chemical at any given facility.

    Form Numbers: EPA Form No. 8700-30.

    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities required to prepare or have available a material safety data sheet for any hazardous chemical under the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312.

    Estimated number of respondents: 403,052 respondents.

    Frequency of response: Annually.

    Total estimated burden: 5,915,254 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $254,413,726 (per year), which includes $6,593,300 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 2,006,122 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is due to a revised estimate of facilities subject to EPCRA sections 311 and 312.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07026 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0078; FRL-9925-08-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Metal Coil Surface Coating Plants (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Metal Coil Surface Coating Plants (40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1957.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0487) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR 30117) on May 27, 2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0078, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: This ICR affects respondents from new and existing coil coating line facilities that are major sources of hazardous air pollutant (HAP). Coil coating line is the process in which special equipment is used to apply an organic coating to the surface of metal coils. All NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. Respondents are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. The provisions of this Subpart do not apply to coil coating lines that are part of research or laboratory equipment, or coil coating lines in which 85 percent of the metal coil coated; unless the coating line is controlled by a common control device. The required semiannual reports are used to determine periods of excess emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify operation/maintenance procedures and for compliance determinations. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, Subpart SSSS.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Metal coil surface coating plants.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, Subpart SSSS).

    Estimated number of respondents: 89 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, semiannually, and occasionally.

    Total estimated burden: 25,145 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $2,552,959 (per year), includes $91,200 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 5,244 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is due to an adjustment of burden estimates based on industry comment received from consultation during the renewal of this ICR.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07027 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9925-10-Region-5] Notice of Final Decision To Reissue the Vickery Environmental, Inc. Land-Ban Exemption AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Final Decision on a Request by Vickery Environmental, Inc. of Vickery, Ohio to Reissue its Exemption from the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA or Agency) that an exemption to the land disposal restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) has been granted to Vickery Environmental, Inc. (VEI) of Vickery, Ohio for four Class I injection wells located in Vickery, Ohio. As required by 40 CFR part 148, VEI has demonstrated, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents out of the injection zone or into an underground source of drinking water (USDW) for at least 10,000 years. This final decision allows the continued underground injection by VEI of only those hazardous wastes designated by the codes in Table 1 through its four Class I hazardous waste injection wells identified as #2, #4, #5 and #6. This decision constitutes a final U.S. EPA action for which there is no administrative appeal.

    DATES:

    This action is effective as of March 27, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Roy, Lead Petition Reviewer, U.S. EPA, Region 5, Water Division, Underground Injection Control Branch, WU-16J, Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590; telephone number: (312) 886-6556; fax number (312) 692-2951; email address: [email protected] Copies of the petition and all pertinent information are on file and are part of the Administrative Record. It is recommended that you contact the lead reviewer prior to reviewing the Administrative Record.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    VEI submitted a request for reissuance of its existing exemption from the land disposal restrictions of hazardous waste in September, 2007. U.S. EPA staff reviewed all data pertaining to the petition, including, but not limited to, well construction, well operations, regional and local geology, seismic activity, penetrations of the confining zone, and computational models of the injection zone. U.S. EPA has determined that the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site and the nature of the waste streams are such that reliable predictions can be made that fluid movement conditions are such that injected fluids will not migrate out of the injection zone within 10,000 years, as set forth at 40 CFR part 148. The injection zone includes the injection interval into which fluid is directly emplaced and the overlying arrestment interval into which it may diffuse. The injection interval for the VEI facility is composed of the Mt. Simon Sandstone between 2791 and 2950 feet below ground level. The arrestment interval for the VEI facility is composed of the Rome, Conasauga, Kerbel and Knox Formations between 2360 and 2791 feet below ground level. The confining zone at the VEI facility is composed of the Black River and Wells Creek Formations between 1816 and 2360 feet below ground level. The confining zone is separated from the lowermost underground source of drinking water (at a depth of 574 feet below ground level) by a sequence of permeable and less permeable sedimentary rocks. This sequence provides additional protection from fluid migration into drinking water sources.

    U.S. EPA issued a draft decision, which described the reasons for granting this exemption in more detail, a fact sheet, which summarized these reasons, and a public notice on December 5, 2014, pursuant to 40 CFR 124.10. U.S. EPA held a public hearing on January 8, 2015, but no one elected to comment on the draft decision at the hearing. The public comment period ended on January 20, 2015. U.S. EPA received comments from VEI but no other parties during the comment period. U.S. EPA has prepared a response to VEI's comments, which can be viewed at the following URL: http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/uic/pubpdf/vei-response-to-comments.pdf. This document is part of the Administrative Record for this decision. U.S. EPA is issuing the final exemption with the changes identified in the response to comments.

    Conditions

    This exemption is subject to the following conditions. Non-compliance with any of these conditions is grounds for termination of the exemption:

    (1) The exemption applies to the four existing hazardous waste injection wells, #2, #4, #5, and #6 located at the VEI facility at 3956 State Route 412, Vickery, Ohio.

    (2) Injection of restricted hazardous waste is limited to the part of the Mt. Simon Sandstone at depths between 2791 and 2950 feet below the surface level.

    (3) Only restricted wastes designated by the RCRA waste codes found in Table 1 may be injected.

    (4) Maximum concentrations of chemicals that are allowed to be injected are listed in Table 2.

    (5) The average specific gravity of the injected waste stream must be no less than 1.08 over a one-year period.

    (6) VEI may inject up to a combined total of 240 gallons per minute into Well #2, #4, #5, and #6, based on a monthly average.

    (7) This exemption is approved for the 20-year modeled injection period, which ends on June 30, 2027. VEI may petition U.S. EPA for a reissuance of the exemption beyond that date, provided that a new and complete petition and no-migration demonstration is received at U.S. EPA, Region 5, by January 31, 2027.

    (8) VEI must submit, within 90 days after the exemption is granted, an approvable plan to demonstrate that chemicals listed in Table 2 are not or cannot be injected above the listed limits. Upon U.S. EPA's approval of this plan, VEI shall implement the plan per the schedule in the approved plan.

    (9) VEI must submit copies of the reports on the annual bottom-hole pressure surveys conducted in well #2, #4, #5 or #6 to U.S. EPA when these reports are submitted to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). The reports must include a comparison of reservoir parameters determined from the fall-off test, such as permeability and long-term shut-in pressure, with parameters used in the approved no-migration petition.

    (10) VEI must submit copies of the reports on the annual radioactive tracer surveys and annulus pressure tests for wells #2, #4, #5 and #6 to U.S. EPA when these reports are submitted to Ohio EPA.

    (11) VEI shall notify U.S. EPA in writing if any injection well loses mechanical integrity, prior to any workover or plugging when these notifications are submitted to Ohio EPA.

    (12) The petitioner must fully comply with all requirements set forth in Underground Injection Control Permits 03-72-009-PTO-I, 03-72-011-PTO-I, 03-72-012-PTO-I, and 03-72-013-PTO-I issued by Ohio EPA.

    (13) Upon the expiration, cancellation, reissuance, or modification of the permits referenced above, this exemption is subject to review.

    (14) Whenever U.S. EPA determines that the basis for approval of a petition under 40 CFR §§ 148.23 and 148.24 may no longer be valid, U.S. EPA may terminate this exemption and will require a new demonstration in accordance with 40 CFR § 148.20.

    Table 1—List of RCRA Waste Codes Approved for Injection D001 D002 D003 D004 D005 D006 D007 D008 D009 D010 D011 D012 D013 D014 D015 D016 D017 D018 D019 D020 D021 D022 D023 D024 D025 D026 D027 D028 D029 D030 D031 D032 D033 D034 D035 D036 D037 D038 D039 D040 D041 D042 D043 F001 F002 F003 F004 F005 F006 F007 F008 F009 F010 F011 F012 F019 F020 F021 F022 F023 F024 F025 F026 F027 F028 F032 F034 F035 F037 F038 F039 K001 K002 K003 K004 K005 K006 K007 K008 K009 K010 K011 K013 K014 K015 K016 K017 K018 K019 K020 K021 K022 K023 K024 K025 K026 K027 K028 K029 K030 K031 K032 K033 K034 K035 K036 K037 K038 K039 K040 K041 K042 K043 K044 K045 K046 K047 K048 K049 K050 K051 K052 K060 K061 K062 K069 K071 K073 K083 K084 K085 K086 K087 K088 K093 K094 K095 K096 K097 K098 K099 K100 K101 K102 K103 K104 K105 K106 K107 K108 K109 K110 K111 K112 K113 K114 K115 K116 K117 K118 K123 K124 K125 K126 K131 K132 K136 K140 K141 K142 K143 K144 K145 K147 K148 K149 K150 K151 K156 K157 K158 K159 K161 K169 K170 K171 K172 K174 K175 K176 K177 K178 K181 P001 P002 P003 P004 P005 P006 P007 P008 P009 P010 P011 P012 P013 P014 P015 P016 P017 P018 P020 P021 P022 P023 P024 P026 P027 P028 P029 P030 P031 P033 P034 P036 P037 P038 P039 P040 P041 P042 P043 P044 P045 P046 P047 P048 P049 P050 P051 P054 P056 P057 P058 P059 P060 P062 P063 P064 P065 P066 P067 P068 P069 P070 P071 P072 P073 P074 P075 P076 P077 P078 P081 P082 P084 P085 P087 P088 P089 P092 P093 P094 P095 P096 P097 P098 P099 P101 P102 P103 P104 P105 P106 P108 P109 P110 P111 P112 P113 P114 P115 P116 P118 P119 P120 P121 P122 P123 P127 P128 P185 P188 P189 P190 P191 P192 P194 P196 P197 P198 P199 P201 P202 P203 P204 P205 U001 U002 U003 U004 U005 U006 U007 U008 U009 U010 U011 U012 U014 U015 U016 U017 U018 U019 U020 U021 U022 U023 U024 U025 U026 U027 U028 U029 U030 U031 U032 U033 U034 U035 U036 U037 U038 U039 U041 U042 U043 U044 U045 U046 U047 U048 U049 U050 U051 U052 U053 U055 U056 U057 U058 U059 U060 U061 U062 U063 U064 U066 U067 U068 U069 U070 U071 U072 U073 U074 U075 U076 U077 U078 U079 U080 U081 U082 U083 U084 U085 U086 U087 U088 U089 U090 U091 U092 U093 U094 U095 U096 U097 U098 U099 U101 U102 U103 U105 U106 U107 U108 U109 U110 U111 U112 U113 U114 U115 U116 U117 U118 U119 U120 U121 U122 U123 U124 U125 U126 U127 U128 U129 U130 U131 U132 U133 U134 U135 U136 U137 U138 U139 U140 U141 U142 U143 U144 U145 U146 U147 U148 U149 U150 U151 U152 U153 U154 U155 U156 U157 U158 U159 U160 U161 U162 U163 U164 U165 U166 U167 U168 U169 U170 U171 U172 U173 U174 U176 U177 U178 U179 U180 U181 U182 U183 U184 U185 U186 U187 U188 U189 U190 U191 U192 U193 U194 U196 U197 U200 U201 U202 U203 U204 U205 U206 U207 U208 U209 U210 U211 U213 U214 U215 U216 U217 U218 U219 U220 U221 U222 U223 U225 U226 U227 U228 U234 U235 U236 U237 U238 U239 U240 U243 U244 U246 U247 U248 U249 U271 U278 U279 U280 U328 U353 U359 U364 U367 U372 U373 U387 U389 U394 U395 U404 U409 U410 U411 Table 2—Maximum Concentrations of Chemical Contaminants That are Hazardous at Less Than One Part per Billion Chemical constituent Health based limit
  • (mg/L)
  • Maximum allowable initial
  • concentration
  • (mg/L)
  • Vickery limit
  • (%)
  • Acetyl chloride 2.00E-04 2.00E+05 20 Acrylamide (2-Propenamide) 8.00E-06 8.00E+03 0.80 Acrylonitrile (2-Propenenitrile or Vinyl Cyanide) 6.00E-05 6.00E+04 6.00 Aldrin 2.00E-07 2.00E+02 0.02 Allyl Chloride ( 3-chloroprop(yl)ene) 3.00E-05 3.00E+04 3.00 Bendiocarb (2,2-Dimethyl-1,3-benzodioxol methylcarbamate) 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Benzal chloride 2.00E-05 2.00E+04 2.0 Benz[a]anthracene (1,2-Benzanthracene) 1.30E-04 1.30E+05 13 Benzidine 2.00E-07 2.00E+02 0.02 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 1.80E-04 1.80E+05 18 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1.70E-04 1.70E+05 17 Benzo[g,h,I]-perylene 7.60E-04 7.60E+05 76 Benzo[a]pyrene 2.00E-04 2.00E+05 20 Benzotrichloride 3.00E-06 3.00E+03 0.30 Benzyl chloride ((Chloromethyl)benzene) 2.00E-04 2.00E+05 20 alpha BHC (see Lindane) alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane 6.00E-06 6.00E+03 0.60 beta BHC (see Lindane) beta-hexachlorocyclohexane 2.00E-05 2.00E+04 2 delta BHC (see Lindane) delta-hexachlorocyclohexane 2.00E-04 2.00E+05 20 Bromoacetone (1-Bromo-2-propanone) 3.00E-05 3.00E+04 3 Bromodichloromethane (Trihalomethane) 6.00E-04 6.00E+05 60 Brucine (2,3-Dimethoxystrychnidin-10-one) 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Carbendazim (1H-benzimidazol-2-yl carbamic acid methyl ester) 4.00E-04 4.00E+05 40 Carbon oxyfluoride 5.00E-04 5.00E+05 50 Chlorinated fluorocarbons, not otherwise specified 5.00E-04 5.00E+05 50 Chloroacetaldehyde 5.90E-04 5.90E+05 59 Chlorodibromomethane 4.00E-04 4.00E+05 40 Chloroethers 3.00E-05 3.00E+04 3 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether 3.00E-05 3.00E+04 3 Chloromethyl methyl ether 3.00E-05 3.00E+04 3 Chloroprene 3.00E-05 3.00E+04 3 m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Cyclohexane 9.00E-05 9.00E+04 9 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), salts, esters 2.00E-04 2.00E+05 20 p,p′-Dichlorodipheyldichloroethane (p,p′-DDD) 1.00E-04 1.00E+05 10 p,p′-Dichlorodipheyldichloroethylene (p,p′-DDE) 1.00E-04 1.00E+05 10 p,p′-Dichlorodiphehylotrichloroethane (p,p′-DDT) 1.00E-04 1.00E+05 10 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Dibromochloropropane 2.00E-04 2.00E+05 20 2,3-Dibromo-1-propanol phosphate(3:1) 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Dichlorobenzene 2.00E-04 2.00E+05 20 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 8.00E-05 8.00E+04 8 sym-Dichloroethyl ether 3.00E-05 3.00E+04 3 sym-Dichloromethyl ether 1.60E-07 1.60E+02 0.016 Dichloropropane 6.00E-05 6.00E+04 6 Dichloropropanol 6.00E-05 6.00E+04 6 Dichloropropene 3.00E-05 3.00E+04 3 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 3.00E-05 3.00E+04 3 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 3.00E-05 3.00E+04 3 Dieldrin 2.00E-06 2.00E+03 0.2 Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 O,O-Diethyl O-pyrazinyl phosphorothioate 4.00E-04 4.00E+05 40 Dimetilan 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 3.10E-04 3.10E+05 31 Di-n-octyl phthalate 4.90E-04 4.90E+05 49 Di-n-propylnitrosamine 5.00E-06 5.00E+03 0.5 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 5.00E-05 5.00E+04 5 Dithiocarbamates (total) 9.00E-04 9.00E+05 90 Ethylene dibromide 5.00E-05 5.00E+04 5 Ethylidene chloride 7.00E-04 7.00E+05 70 Famphur 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Fluoroacetic acid, sodium salt 7.00E-04 7.00E+05 70 Formetanate hydrochloride 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Formparanate 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Heptachlor (and its epoxide) 2.00E-04 2.00E+05 20 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 2.50E-05 2.50E+04 2.5 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 2.50E-05 2.50E+04 2.5 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2.50E-05 2.50E+04 2.5 Hexachlorobutadiene 5.00E-04 5.00E+05 50 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 2.50E-05 2.50E+04 2.5 Hexaethyl tetraphosphate 4.00E-04 4.00E+05 40 Hydrazine 1.00E-05 1.00E+04 1 Indeno[1,2,3-cd] pyrene 4.30E-04 4.30E+05 43 Isolan 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Lindane (1,2,3,4,5,6-hexa-chlorocyclohexane, gamma isomer) 2.00E-04 2.00E+05 20 Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate 9.00E-04 9.00E+05 90 Mercury fulminate 1.00E-04 1.00E+05 10 Methiocarb 5.00E-04 5.00E+05 50 Methyl chlorocarbonate 5.90E-04 5.90E+05 59 Metolcarb 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 N-methyl-N′-nitro-N-nitroso-guanidine (MNNG) 1.50E-04 1.50E+05 15 Naphthalene 6.00E-04 6.00E+05 60 p-Nitrophenol 1.30E-04 1.30E+05 13 N-Nitrosodiethanolamine 1.00E-05 1.00E+04 1 N-Nitrosodiethylamine 2.00E-07 2.00E+02 0.02 N-Nitrosodimethylamine 7.00E-07 7.00E+02 0.07 N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine 6.00E-06 6.00E+03 0.6 N-Nitrosomethylethylamine 2.00E-06 2.00E+03 0.2 N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine 1.50E-04 1.50E+05 15 N-Nitroso-N-methylurea 1.50E-04 1.50E+05 15 N-Nitroso-N-methlurethane 1.50E-04 1.50E+05 15 N-Nitrosopyrrolidine 2.00E-05 2.00E+04 2 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzofuran 5.00E-05 5.00E+04 5 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 5.00E-05 5.00E+04 5 Parathion 6.00E-04 6.00E+05 60 Pebulate 8.00E-04 8.00E+05 80 Pentachlorodibenzofurans, total 2.50E-05 2.50E+04 2.5 Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, total 2.50E-05 2.50E+04 2.5 Pentachlorophenols and their chlorophenoxy derivative acids, esters amines and salts 7.60E-05 7.60E+04 7.6 1,3-Pentadiene 3.00E-05 3.00E+04 3 Phorate 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Phosgene 2.00E-04 2.00E+05 20 Phosphorithioic and phosphordithioic acid esters 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Physostigmine 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Physostigmine salicylate 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Polychlorinated Biphenyls 5.00E-04 5.00E+05 50 Prosulfocarb 6.00E-04 6.00E+05 60 Reserpine 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Streptozotocin 1.50E-04 1.50E+05 15 Sulfur phosphide 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Tars 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Tetrachlorodibenzofurans 1.00E-05 1.00E+04 1 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 3.00E-08 3.00E+01 0.003 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 2.00E-04 2.00E+05 20 Tetraethyl lead 3.50E-06 3.50E+03 0.35 Thiodicarb 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Thiofanox 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Tirpate 3.00E-04 3.00E+05 30 Trichlorobenzene 1.20E-04 1.20E+05 12 Trichloromethanethiol 2.00E-04 2.00E+05 20 Triethylamine 5.00E-04 5.00E+05 50

    Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically from the Government Printing Office under the “Federal Register” listings at FDSys (http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR).

    Dated: March 10, 2015. Kevin M. Pierard, Acting Director, Water Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06970 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0097; FRL-9923-32-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Plating and Polishing Area Sources (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Plating and Polishing Area Sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWWWW) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2294.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0623), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR 30117) on May 27, 2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0097, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Plating and Polishing Area Sources regulations apply to respondents that are plating and polishing facilities engaged in any of the following processes: Non-chromium electroplating; electroless or non-electrolytic plating; other non-electrolytic metal coating processes such as chromate conversion coating, nickel acetate sealing, sodium dichromate sealing, manganese phosphate coating, thermal spraying; dry mechanical polishing of finished metals and formed products after plating or thermal spraying, electroforming, and electro-polishing. New facilities include those that commenced construction or reconstruction after the date of proposal. The required annual reports are used to determine periods of excess emissions, identify problems at the facility, verify operation/maintenance procedures and for compliance determinations. This information is also collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWWWW.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of plating and polishing facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWWWW).

    Estimated number of respondents: 2,900 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and annually.

    Total estimated burden: 64,315 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $6,304,966 (per year), which includes $8,314 in annualized capital/start-up costs and 0 in operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 31,208 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. The change in burden and cost estimates occurred as a result of updating the burden tables to accurately reflect the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the rule.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07028 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0058; FRL-9922-78] Registration Review; Draft Human Health and/or Ecological Risk Assessment; Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft human health and/or ecological risk assessment for the registration review of propoxycarbazone-sodium, and opens a public comment period on this document. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the Agency has completed a comprehensive draft human health and ecological risk assessment for all uses of the previously listed pesticide chemical. The ecological risk assessment includes or will include an assessment of risks to listed species, and the human health and ecological risk assessments includes or will include a determination of endocrine disrupter effects for the case. After reviewing comments received during the public comment period, EPA may issue revised risk assessments, explain any changes to the draft risk assessments, and respond to comments. The Agency also will request public input on any proposed risk mitigation measures before completing a proposed registration review decision for the previously listed pesticide chemical. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0058, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For pesticide specific information contact: Chemical Review Manager identified in the table in Unit III.A. for the pesticide of interest.

    For general questions on the registration review program, contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-8015; email address: [email protected]

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

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

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

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

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of dimethoate, flurprimido, fosamine ammonium, propoxur, propoxycarbazone-sodium, and tetrachlorvinphos pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

    III. Registration Reviews

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide registration for propoxycarbazone-sodium to ensure that it continues to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, this pesticide can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Information on the type of pesticide, target pests and uses sites can be found later in this document. EPA has completed draft human health and/or ecological risk assessments for all propoxycarbazone-sodium, uses.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and ecological risk assessment for propoxycarbazone-sodium. Such comments and input could address, among other things, the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions, as applied to this draft risk assessment. The Agency will consider all comments received during the public comment period and make changes, as appropriate, to the draft human health and ecological risk assessments. EPA will then, as needed, issue revised risk assessments, explain any changes to the draft risk assessments, and respond to the comments. In the Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the revised risk assessments, if a revised risk assessment indicates risks of concern, the Agency may provide a comment period for the public to submit suggestions for mitigating the risks identified in the revised risk assessment before developing a proposed registration review decision. Alternatively, the Agency may seek public comment on a proposed registration review decision without revising the risk assessments for any given chemical. At present, EPA is releasing registration review draft risk assessments for the pesticide case identified in the following table and further described after the table.

    Table—Registration Review Draft Risk Assessments Registration review case name and No. Pesticide docket ID No. Chemical review manager, telephone number, and email address Propoxycarbazone-sodium (Case 7264) EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0095 Lata Venkateshwara, (703) 308-2722, [email protected]

    Propoxycarbazone-sodium (Draft Risk Assessments). The registration review docket for propoxycarbazone-sodium (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0095) is opening for public comment on the Preliminary Work Plan (PWP), the combined summary document and draft human health risk assessment, and the combined problem formulation and draft ecological risk assessment. Propoxycarbazone-sodium is a selective post-emergence herbicide belonging to the sulfonamide class of herbicides. It is formulated as a water dispersible granule, and is currently registered for use in control of certain grasses and broadleaf weeds in wheat, triticale, pastureland, rangeland, and conservation reserve program. There are no registered residential uses. EPA has completed comprehensive draft human health and draft ecological risk assessments for all propoxycarbazone-sodium uses.

    1. Other related information. Additional information on propoxycarbazone-sodium is available on the Pesticide Registration Review Status Web page for this pesticide, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/. Information on the Agency's registration review program and its implementing regulation is available at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review.

    2. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements:

    • To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.

    • The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.

    • Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.

    • Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.

    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: March 13, 2015. Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-06939 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0060; FRL-9923-74] Registration Review Interim Decisions; Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the availability of EPA's final/interim registration review decisions for several pesticide cases. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, that the pesticide can perform its intended function without causing unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For pesticide specific information, contact: The Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the table in Unit II.A.

    For general information on the registration review program, contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8015; email address: [email protected]

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

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the pesticide specific contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0060, 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.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), this notice announces the availability of EPA's interim registration review decision for fluazinam (case 7013), flumetsulam (case 7229), flutolanil (case 7010), hexaflumuron (case 7413), iron salts (case 4058), piperalin (case 3114), quinclorac (case 7222) and triflumizole (case 7003).

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.57, a registration review decision is the Agency's determination whether a pesticide meets, or does not meet, the standard for registration in FIFRA. EPA has such a determination for the cases listed in the table below. The interim registration review decisions for each case are found in the respective pesticide dockets. Information in the dockets describes the Agency's rationale for issuing each interim decision for fluazinam (case 7013), flumetsulam (case 7229), flutolanil (case 7010), hexaflumuron (case 7413), iron salts (case 4058), piperalin (case 3114), quinclorac (case 7222), and triflumizole (case 7003), EPA has considered the following chemicals/cases in light of the FIFRA standard for registration: Fluazinam (case 7013), flumetsulam (case 7229), flutolanil (case 7010), hexaflumuron (case 7413), iron salts (case 4058), piperalin (case 3114), quinclorac (case 7222), and triflumizole (case 7003), the Interim Decision documents in the docket describe the Agency's rationale for issuing a registration review final/interim decision for each of these pesticides.

    In addition to the interim registration review decision document, the registration review docket for fluazinam, flumetsulam, flutolanil, hexaflumuron, iron salts, piperalin, quinclorac, and triflumizole also includes other relevant documents related to the registration review of these cases. The proposed interim registration review decisions were posted to the docket and the public was invited to submit any comments or new information.

    Table—Registration Review Interim Decisions Registration review case name and No. Pesticide Docket ID No. Chemical Review Manager,
  • telephone number, email address
  • Fluazinam (case 7013) EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0039 Lata Venkateshwara, (703) 308-2722, [email protected]. Flumetsulam (case 7229) EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0625 Katherine St. Clair, (703) 347-8778, [email protected]. Flutolanil (case 7010) EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0148 Garland Waleko, (703) 308-8049, [email protected]. Hexaflumuron (case 7413) EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0568 Ricardo Jones, (703) 347-0493, [email protected]. Iron salts (case 4058) EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0626 Katherine St. Clair, (703) 347-8778, [email protected]. Piperalin (case 3114) EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0483 Matthew Manupella, (703) 347-0411, [email protected]. Quinclorac (case 7222) EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1135 Margaret Hathaway, (703) 305-5076, [email protected]. Triflumizole (case 7003) EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0115 Steven Snyderman, (703) 347-0249, [email protected].

    Fluazinam. Interim Decision (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0039). The registration review docket for fluazinam (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0039) opened in a notice published in the Federal Register of September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48559) (FRL-8434-6). Fluazinam is a contact fungicide of the pyridinamine class registered for agricultural use on a variety of crops, including peanuts, potatoes, and beans. EPA conducted a human health risk assessment and did not identify any risks of concern. In addition, EPA conducted an environmental fate and effects risk assessment. Based on low-risk estimates, and the conservative nature of the risk assessment, the Agency has determined that fluazinam use does not pose unreasonable risks to the environment from currently registered uses of fluazinam. The Agency is not proposing mitigation changes at this time. EPA published an interim proposed registration review decision in the Federal Register on September 24, 2014 (79 FR 57084) (FRL-9916-39). Two comments were received on the proposed interim decision, which did not change the conclusions of the decision. At this time in registration review, it is premature to make an endangered species effects determination for federally listed species and their designated critical habitats under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Fluazinam has also not been evaluated under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the results of the evaluation of risks to threatened and endangered species and of potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of these actions, EPA is issuing an interim registration review decision for fluazinam at this time.

    Flumetsulam. Interim Decision (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0625). Flumetsulam has been registered as a pesticide in the United States since 1985, and is currently registered for use as an herbicide for control of broadleaf weeds in field corn and soybeans. Flumetsulam is registered only for agricultural uses; there are no registered residential or public recreational uses of flumetsulam. EPA conducted a human health risk assessment and did not identify any risks of concern. No human health mitigation is being undertaken for flumetsulam at this time by the Agency. The Agency also conducted an ecological risk assessment for existing flumetsulam uses listed above. For existing uses, risks of concern were identified for listed and non-listed aquatic and terrestrial plant species from the use of flumetsulam on corn and soybeans. Listed aquatic and terrestrial animals may also be affected through indirect effects because of the potential effects on listed and non-listed aquatic and terrestrial plant species. EPA published a proposed interim registration review decision for flumetsulam in the Federal Register on September 24, 2014 (79 FR 57084) (FRL-9916-39). The document includes various label changes to mitigate risks to non-target plants by reducing spray drift. Comments from three stakeholders were received on the proposed interim decision; these comments did not change the conclusions of the decision or the proposed mitigation to address ecological risks. At this time in registration review, it is premature to make an endangered species effects determination for federally listed species and their designated critical habitats under the ESA. Also, flumetsulam has not yet been evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the results of the evaluation of risks to threatened and endangered species and of potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of these actions, EPA is issuing an interim registration review decision for flumetsulam at this time.

    Flutolanil. Interim Decision (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0148). Flutolanil is a systemic benzanilide fungicide first registered by EPA in 1993, used to control fungal diseases in both food crops (peanuts, potatoes, rice) and non-food sites (turf, greenhouse, field-grown and potted ornamentals). Flutolanil has both protective and curative activity. EPA completed a qualitative draft human health risk assessment for all flutolanil uses and for proposed label amendments for brassica (cole) leafy vegetables (Crop Group 5), turnip greens, rice, turf, and peanuts. No risks of concern were identified. The Agency also conducted an ecological risk assessment for existing and proposed uses listed above. For existing uses, risks of concern were identified for freshwater fish and estuarine/marine invertebrates in the water column and sediment, and for terrestrial dicots and aquatic non-vascular plants for some uses. EPA published an interim proposed registration review decision in the Federal Register on September 24, 2014. One comment was received on the proposed interim decision, which did not change the conclusions of the decision or the proposed mitigation to address risks to aquatic organisms. At this time in registration review, it is premature to make an endangered species effects determination for federally listed species and their designated critical habitats under the ESA. Flutolanil has also not been evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the results of the evaluation of risks to threatened and endangered species and of potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of these actions, EPA is issuing an interim registration review decision for flutolanil at this time.

    Hexaflumuron. Interim Decision (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0568). Hexaflumuron is an insecticide/termiticide applied in above- and below-ground termite bait systems, and is intended to be used near commercial, recreational or residential structures. EPA completed a qualitative human health risk assessment and no risks of concern were identified. The Agency also conducted an ecological risk assessment and determined that hexaflumuron does not pose unreasonable risk to the environment. The Agency has made an endangered species effects determination of “no effects” for aquatic organisms and a determination of “no habitat modification” to all designated critical habitats under the ESA. EPA published an interim proposed registration review decision for hexaflumuron in the Federal Register on September 24, 2014. Hexaflumuron has not been evaluated under EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent on the result of the Section 7 Endangered Species consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of these actions, EPA is issuing an interim registration review decision for hexaflumuron at this time.

    Iron Salts. Interim Decision (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0626). The iron salts registration review case includes two active chemicals, ferric sulfate and ferrous sulfate monohydrate. Iron is the fourth most abundant element and the second most abundant metal in the earth's crustal rocks. Iron occurs in a wide variety of minerals, and it is present in foods naturally and through added ingredients. Iron salts are herbicides registered for use on outdoor lawns and ornamentals to control mosses in a variety of residential and commercial areas. There are no registered agricultural uses of iron salts products. EPA conducted a human health risk assessment and did not identify any risks of concern. The Agency relied upon the previous iron salts human health risk assessment, completed for the iron salts Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), to support the registration review of iron salts since no significant changes have been made since the RED that impact the risk conclusions for this case. The Agency also conducted an ecological risk assessment for existing uses of iron salts listed above. For existing uses, EPA does not expect iron salts to have direct or indirect adverse effects to non-listed and listed terrestrial vertebrates, terrestrial plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and aquatic organisms or to adversely modify any designated critical habitat for such species and has made a “no effect” determination under the ESA for those species and designated critical habitat for such species. EPA published an interim proposed registration review decision for iron salts in the Federal Register on September 24, 2014. One comment was received on the proposed interim decision; the comment did not change the conclusions of the decision. At this time in registration review, iron salts has not yet been evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the results of the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the completion of EDSP work for this case, EPA is issuing an interim registration review decision for iron salts at this time.

    Piperalin. Interim Decision (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0483). Currently, piperalin is registered exclusively for use to control powdery mildew on ornamental plants, shrubs, vines, and trees grown in commercial greenhouses and other similar enclosed structures with nonporous coverings. EPA conducted a human health risk assessment and did not identify any risks of concern. The Agency did not conduct a comprehensive ecological risk assessment since the use pattern does not likely result in outdoor exposures. No risks of concern were identified and the Agency has made a “no effect” determination for federally listed endangered and threatened (listed) species as well as a “no habitat modification” determination for all designated critical habitat. Piperalin has not been evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the result of the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk. The EPA is issuing an interim registration review decision for piperalin.

    Quinclorac. Interim Decision (EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1135). Quinclorac is a systemic herbicide used to control broadleaf and grass weeds via ground spray or aerial application. Currently registered uses of quinclorac include turf grasses, sorghum, wheat, rangeland/pasture, rights-of way/fencerow/hedgerow, grass grown for seed, fallow land, grass forage/fodder/hay, rice, rhubarb, and low growing berry (except strawberry) subgroup 13-07H. EPA conducted a human health risk assessment and did not identify any risks of concern. No human health mitigation is being undertaken for quinclorac at this time by the Agency. However, a data gap is identified by the Quinclorac human health risk assessment: An updated analytical standard for the quinclorac DMA salt to the EPA National Pesticide Standards Repository. The Agency also conducted an ecological risk assessment for existing listed above. For existing uses, risks of concern were identified for listed and non-listed terrestrial plant species as well as listed aquatic vascular plants from use of quinclorac on rice. EPA published an interim proposed registration review decision for quinclorac in the Federal Register on September 24, 2014. The document includes various label changes to mitigate risks to terrestrial plants by reducing spray drift and also calls for updates to quinclorac tolerances. One comment was received on the proposed interim decision, which did not change the conclusions of the decision or the proposed mitigation to address ecological risks. At this time in registration review, it is premature to make an endangered species effects determination for federally listed species and their designated critical habitats under the ESA. Quinclorac has also not yet been evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the results of the evaluation of risks to threatened and endangered species and of potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of these actions, EPA is issuing an interim registration review decision for quinclorac this time.

    Triflumizole. Interim Decision (EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0115). Triflumizole is a broad spectrum, imidazole fungicide (group 3) that inhibits ergosterol biosynthesis in fungi, acting as a systemic fungicide. Triflumizole is registered for application to a number of food and non-food crops, including ornamentals in greenhouses/shade houses, interior scapes, and Christmas trees/conifers on nurseries and plantations. It is also used as a preplant seed piece treatment on pineapples. EPA conducted a quantitative human health risk assessment and identified occupational handler and post-application exposure risks of concern for several use scenarios. To mitigate the occupational handler risks of concern when applying triflumizole with open cab air blast equipment to apple, pear, and cherry, the technical registrant Chemtura agreed to require additional personal protective equipment of a chemical resistant hat. To address occupational post-application risks of concern, the registrant agreed to increase re-entry intervals (REIs) for grapes (table and raisin) to 1-day and hops to 3 days. The ecological risk assessment identified potential risks to listed mammals, birds, herpatofauna, freshwater fish, and aquatic estuarine/marine invertebrates. To mitigate potential chronic risk to non-listed mammals, the registrant agreed to label changes reducing the number of applications per year for certain crops and increasing the retreatment interval (RTI) to reflect typical usage. EPA published a proposed interim registration review decision for triflumizole in the Federal Register on September 24, 2014. The document includes the various label changes to mitigate risks detailed previously. Only one comment from the Center for Biological Diversity was received on the proposed interim decision; this comment did not change the conclusions of the decision or the proposed mitigation to address the risks. At this time in registration review, it is premature to make an endangered species effects determination for federally listed species and their designated critical habitats under the ESA. Also, triflumizole has not yet been evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the results of the evaluation of risks to threatened and endangered species and of potential endocrine disruptor risk. Pending the outcome of these actions, EPA is issuing an interim registration review decision for triflumizole at this time.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case docket for fluazinam (case 7013), flumetsulam (case 7229), flutolanil (case 7010), hexaflumuron (case 7413), iron salts (case 4058), piperalin (case 3114), quinclorac (case 7222), and triflumizole (case 7003) will remain open until all actions required in the final/interim decision have been completed.

    Background on the registration review program is provided at: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review. Links to earlier documents related to the registration review of these pesticides are provided at: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/individualpesticides-registration-review.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: March 17, 2015. Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07004 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9020-2] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability AGENCY:

    Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements.

    Filed 03/16/2015 Through 03/20/2015.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

    EIS No. 20150075, Draft Supplement, FHWA, AK, Sterling Highway MP 45—60 Project, Comment Period Ends: 05/26/2015, Contact: John Lohrey 907-586-7418 EIS No. 20150076, Final EIS, BLM, ID, Thompson Creek Mine Expansion and Public Land Disposal Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment, Review Period Ends: 04/27/2015, Contact: Ken Gardner 208-879-6210 EIS No. 20150077, Final EIS, USFS, CO, Eldora Mountain Resort Ski Area Projects, Review Period Ends: 05/04/2015, Contact: K. Reid Armstrong 303-541-2532 EIS No. 20150078, Draft EIS, NRC, IL, Generic—License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 55 Regarding Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2, Comment Period Ends: 05/12/2015, Contact: Tam Tran 301-415-3617 EIS No. 20150079, Final EIS, NRC, TN, Generic- License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 53 Regarding Sequoyah Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, Review Period Ends: 04/27/2015, Contact: David Drucker 301-415-6223 EIS No. 20150080, Final EIS, BLM, CO, Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment for Oil and Gas Development in the White River Field Office, Review Period Ends: 04/27/2015, Contact: Heather Sauls 970-878-3855 EIS No. 20150081, Second Final EIS, BLM, USFS, ID, Smoky Canyon Mine Panels F and G Lease and Mine Plan Modification Project, Review Period Ends: 04/27/2015, Contact: Diane Wheeler 208-557-5839

    The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management and The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service are joint lead agencies for the above project.

    EIS No. 20150082, Final EIS, BR, CA, Long-term Water Transfers, Review Period Ends: 04/27/2015, Contact: Brad Hubbard 916-978-5204 Dated: March 25, 2015. Cliff Rader, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07137 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OEI-2011-0096; FRL-9924-15-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2002.06, OMB Control No. 2025-0003) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR 65391) on November 4, 2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 27, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OEI-2011-0096, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to oe[email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Seeh, Office of Environmental Information, (2823T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1175; fax number: 202-566-1684; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The scope of this ICR is the electronic reporting components of CROMERR, which is designed to: (i) Allow EPA to comply with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998; (ii) provide a uniform, technology-neutral framework for electronic reporting across all EPA programs; (iii) allow EPA programs to offer electronic reporting as they become ready for CROMERRR; and (iv) provide states with a streamlined process—together with a uniform set of standards—for approval of their electronic reporting provisions for all their EPA-authorized programs. In order to accommodate CBI, the information collected must be in accordance with the confidentiality regulations set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Additionally, EPA will ensure that the information collection procedures comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 and the OMB Circular 108.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Entities that report electronically to EPA and state or local government authorized programs; and state and local government authorized programs implementing electronic reporting.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a benefit (Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) established to ensure compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA)).

    Estimated number of respondents: 102,387 (total).

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Total estimated burden: 49,604 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $2,995,642 (per year), including $1,121,481 in annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 9,841 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase occurred due to a change in the respondent burden estimation based on data from the previous ICR.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07029 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 23, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. CCBS Holding LLC, Irving, Texas; to become a bank holding company by acquiring up to 77.37 percent of the voting shares of Canyon Bancorporation, Inc., Tucson, Arizona, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Canyon Community Bank, National Association, Tucson, Arizona.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 24, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07032 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 13, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:

    1. Ronald Young Schram, Palm Beach, Florida, and Frank Jay Hessel, Coral Gables, Florida, both to retain voting shares of Flagler Bank, West Palm Beach, Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 24, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-07033 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 26, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by HC Financial Statements, by any of the following methods:

    • Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx .

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    • Email: [email protected] Include OMB number in the subject line of the message.

    • FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

    • Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room 3515, 1801 K Street (between 18th and 19th Streets NW.) Washington, DC 20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

    Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below.

    Federal Reserve Board Acting Clearance Officer—Mark Tokarski—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposals

    The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:

    a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

    b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    e. Estimates of capital or start up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    Proposal To Approve Under OMB Delegated Authority the Revision, Without Extension, of the Following Reports:

    1. Report title: Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies, Parent Company Only Financial Statements for Large H